UNIVERSITY   OF   CALIFORNIA 

COLLEGE    OF    AGRICULTURE 

AGRICULTURAL    EXPERIMENT   STATION 

BERKELEY,    CALIFORNIA 


SERIES  ON  CALIFORNIA  CROPS  AND  PRICES 


ALMONDS 


H.  R.  WELLMAN  and  E.  W.  BRAUN 


BULLETIN  453 

May,  1928 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  PRINTING  OFFICE 

BERKELEY,  CALIFORNIA 

1928 


CONTENTS 

PAGE 

Summary 3 

Almond  Acreage  in  California 6 

The  place  of  California  in  the  almond  industry 6 

Distribution  of  almond  acreage  in  California,  1927 6 

Upward  trend  in  bearing  acreage  since  1914 8 

Forecast  of  bearing  acreage 10 

Where  the  increase  in  bearing  acreage  since  1921  has  occurred 10 

Location  of  non-bearing  acreage,  1927 11 

Almond  Production  in  California 11 

Upward  trend  of  production 11 

Fluctuations  in  production 12 

Yield  per  acre 13 

Varieties  of  almonds 15 

Principal  varieties  grown  in  California 15 

Choice  of  varieties  to  plant 15 

Average  price  differentials  between  varieties 16 

Prices  and  purchasing  power 17 

Annual  average  prices 17 

Trend  of  purchasing  power 18 

Fluctuations  in  purchasing  power  from  year  to  year 20 

United  States  consumption  of  almonds 20 

United  States  imports  of  almonds 21 

Changes  in  almond  imports 21 

Seasonal  variation  in  imports 23 

Origin  of  imports 24 

Foreign  almond  production 25 

Italy 25 

Spain 27 

France 27 

Greece 28 

Tunis 28 

Palestine 28 

Other  countries 28 

Appendix  of  tables 29 


ALMONDS 

H.  R.  WELLMAN'  and  E.  W.  BRAUN2 


SUMMARY 

The  commercial  production  of  almonds  in  the  United  States  is 
practically  confined  to  California.  For  many  years  before  1914  the 
bearing  acreage  of  almonds  in  this  state  remained  practically  station- 
ary at  about  15,000  acres.  Since  1914  the  bearing  acreage  has  increased 
rapidly  and  continuously,  until  at  the  present  time  there  are  approxi- 
mately 87,000  acres  in  bearing.  Furthermore,  it  is  likely  that  the 
trend  of  bearing  acreage  will  continue  upward  until  1929,  at  which 
time  it  is  estimated  that  there  will  be  an  additional  8,000  acres  in 
bearing.  For  the  few  years  immediately  after  1929,  however,  no 
further  increase  in  bearing  acreage  is  expected  because  the  plantings 
during  the  past  few  years  have  been  relatively  small. 

The  production  of  almonds  has  also  increased  substantially,  rising 
from  an  average  of  2,600  tons  in  1914  to  an  average  of  13,000  tons  in 
1927.  California  marketing  organizations  now  have  to  find  outlets  for 
five  times  as  many  almonds  as  they  did  before  the  war.  The  develop- 
ment of  these  outlets  has  been  made  particularly  difficult  by  the  wide 
fluctuations  in  production  from  year  to  year.  In  years  of  large  pro- 
duction it  is  necessary  to  find  many  new  customers  for  California 
almonds,  and,  to  a  considerable  extent,  this  means  the  displacement 
of  foreign  almonds  by  domestic  almonds.  In  years  of  small  pro- 
duction these  new  customers  cannot  be  supplied  with  their  full 
requirements.  Consequently  it  is  difficult  to  retain  their  trade.  This 
problem  is  becoming  increasingly  difficult  because  of  the  tendency  for 
fluctuations  to  become  greater. 

The  average  yield  of  almonds  for  the  state  as  a  whole  is  unprofit- 
ably  low.  Even  with  the  relatively  high  prices  which  have  prevailed 
during  the  last  three  years,  the  average  gross  income  has  not  generally 
been  large  enough  to  pay  the  costs  of  production.  Under  most  con- 
ditions yields  as  low  as  the  present  average  for  the  state  effectively 
prevent  profitable  returns. 


1  Extension  Specialist  in  Agricultural  Economics. 

2  Extension  Specialist  in  Agricultural  Economics. 


4  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

Despite  the  greatly  increased  production  of  almonds  in  the  United 
States,  the  nation  now  produces  only  one-fourth  of  the  almonds  con- 
sumed in  this  country.  The  remainder  is  imported,  mainly  from  Italy, 
Spain,  and  France.  Significant  changes  in  the  trend  of  imports  have 
occurred  during  the  past  thirteen  years.  Until  1916  imports  remained 
fairly  stable.  In  1916,  however,  imports  began  to  rise  rapidly  and 
continued  upward  until  1919.  A  large  part  of  this  increase  was 
probably  due  to  the  dislocation  of  the  European  market  resulting  from 
the  war.  Since  1921  imports  have  declined  rapidly  and  continuously, 
until  at  the  present  time  they  are  only  slightly  above  the  pre-war  level. 
Three  factors  have  contributed  to  this  decline:  (1)  increase  in  the 
tariff,  (2)  recovery  of  European  markets,  and  (3)  increased  use  of 
California  shelled  almonds  in  the  United  States. 

It  is  not  likely,  however,  that  there  will  be  a  further  substantial 
decrease  in  imports  during  the  next  few  years.  A  considerable  part 
of  the  effect  of  the  increase  in  the  tariff  and  the  recovery  of  European 
markets  on  the  decline  in  imports  has  already  occurred. 

The  United  States  supply  of  almonds  is,  therefore,  derived  from 
two  sources:  California  and  foreign  countries.  Changes  in  the  per- 
capita  supply  available  for  consumption  have  been  chiefly  responsible 
for  the  changes  in  the  trend  of  purchasing  power  of  California 
almonds.  During  the  five  years  previous  to  1915  no  definite  upward 
or  downward  trend  in  purchasing  power  is  apparent,  and  likewise 
the  supply  of  almonds  remained  fairly  stationary.  Between  1915  and 
1920,  however,  there  Avas  a  definite  downward  trend  in  purchasing 
power.  The  most  important  cause  for  this  downward  trend  was  the 
rapid  increase  in  the  per-capita  supply,  which  rose  from  an  average 
of  0.48  pounds  in  1914-1915  to  an  average  of  0.88  pounds  in  1918- 
1919.  Consumers  would  not  buy  this  greatly  increased  quantity 
except  at  relatively  lower  prices.  The  increase  in  the  supply  of 
almonds  during  this  period  was  a  result  of  the  two  conditions  already 
mentioned;  namely,  increased  production  in  California  and  increased 
imports. 

After  1920  the  trend  of  purchasing  power  turned  upward,  and  has 
continued  upward  since  then.  However,  it  has  not  yet  reached  the  level 
that  it  occupied  prior  to  the  war.  This  upward  trend  in  purchasing 
power  was  largely  a  result  of  the  decline  in  the  supplies  available  for 
consumption.  The  substantial  increase  in  California  production  during 
this  period  was  not  sufficient  to  offset  the  large  decrease  in  imports. 


BUL.  453  |  ALMONDS  5 

Although  there  has  been  a  decline  in  the  per-capita  consumption 
of  almonds  in  the  United  Stales  during  the  past  few  years,  it  is  still 
substantially  above  the  pre-war  level.  During  the  three-year  period 
from  1913  to  1915  the  average  per-capita  consumption  amounted  to 
0.48  pounds,  as  compared  with  an  average  of  0.68  pounds  for  the 
three  years  from  1924  to  1926.  This  is  an  increase  of  42  per  cent. 
One  reason  for  this  increase  in  per-capita  consumption  is  the  lower 
level  of  purchasing  power.  Consumers  can  now  buy  almonds  at 
relatively  lower  prices  than  they  could  before  the  war.  Consequently 
they  eat  more  of  them. 

The  average  purchasing  power  during  the  past  three  years,  how- 
ever, is  only  17  per  cent  below  the  pre-war  level,  whereas  the  per- 
capita  consumption  is  42  per  cent  above.  This  indicates  that  there  has 
been  a  real  increase  in  the  demand  for  almonds.  This  increased  demand 
has  been  largely  a  result  of  the  more  extensive  use  of  shelled  almonds. 
The  bakery  and  confectionery  trades  are  now  using  more  almonds  in 
the  preparation  of  their  products  than  they  did  a  few  years  ago.  On 
the  other  hand,  there  seems  to  have  been  little,  if  any,  increase  in 
the  per-capita  consumption  of  unshelled  almonds.  The  market  for 
unshelled  almonds  is  essentially  a  seasonal  one  and  of  short  duration. 
The  bulk  of  them  are  consumed  during  the  holiday  season. 

The  California  almond  industry  is  gradually  emerging  from  the 
depression  which  was  most  acute  in  1920.  The  chief  factors  respon- 
sible for  this  recovery  seem  to  be  of  a  fairly  permanent  nature.  They 
are  decreased  imports  and  increased  demand.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
peak  in  the  long  upward  trend  in  California  production  has  not  yet 
been  reached.  In  addition,  a  further  decrease  in  imports  or  an 
increase  in  demand  cannot  safely  be  counted  on.  Furthermore,  the 
wide  fluctuations  in  production  from  year  to  year  complicate  the 
marketing  problem.  For  these  reasons  any  widespread  planting  of 
almonds  does  not  appear  to  be  justified.  A  conservative  expansion 
may  be  desirable,  but  only  on  land  particularly  adapted  to  the  pro- 
duction of  this  crop  and  in  climatic  zones  favorable  to  it.  The  best 
outlook  for  California  almond  growing  is  through  increasing  the 
yield  per  acre.  Yield  is  chiefly  a  matter  of  varieties,  cultural  methods, 
and  favorable  climatic  location,  including  proper  moisture  conditions 
and  freedom  from  frost.  Many  almond  orchards  are  so  located  that 
they  will  continue  to.  be  unprofitable  for  the  remainder  of  their  lives. 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


ALMOND   ACREAGE   IN   CALIFORNIA 

The  Place  of  California  in  the  Almond  Industry. — Practically  all 
of  the  United  States  acreage  of  almonds  is  in  California.  According 
to  the  Fourteenth  Census  of  the  United  States,  the  total  almond 
acreage  in  this  country  in  1920  amounted  to  approximately  55,000 
acres,  of  which  99  per  cent  were  in  California.  Almond  trees  were 
reported  in  fourteen  states  other  than  California,  but  the  acreage  in 
these  states  was  so  small  as  to  be  negligible  from  a  commercial  stand- 
point. Although  the  almond  trees  themselves  grow  well  in  many 
places  in  the  United  States,  they  seldom  produce  a  crop  in  sections 
outside  of  California.  Their  habit  of  early  blooming  renders  the 
blossoms  particularly  liable  to  injury  from  spring  frosts.  Conse- 
quently there  has  been  no  tendency  for  the  other  states  to  increase 
their  acreage  of  almonds.  California  has,  therefore,  a  virtual 
monopoly  in  the  production  of  almonds  as  far  as  the  United  States 
is  concerned.  Certain  foreign  countries,  however,  produce  large 
quantities  of  almonds  which  compete  directly  with  our  almonds  in 
the  markets  of  the  United  States. 

Distribution  of  the  Almond  Acreage  in  California,  1927. — At  the 
present  time  there  are  over  a  hundred  thousand  acres  of  almonds  in 
California.  The  distribution  of  this  acreage  by  counties  is  shown  in 
figure  1.  Although  almonds  are  grown  in  forty-one  of  the  fifty-eight 
counties  in  the  state,  the  large  producing  areas  are  confined  to  com- 
paratively few  counties.  Three-fourths  of  the  total  almond  acreage  in 
1927  was  in  the  seven  counties  of  San  Luis  Obispo,  Yolo,  Butte,  San 
Joaquin,  Colusa,  Stanislaus,  and  Merced;  San  Luis  Obispo  County 
alone  had  one-third  of  the  total.  The  combined  acreage  in  the  seven- 
teen counties  listed  in  figure  1  amounted  to  97,558  acres,  or  96  per 
cent  of  the  total.  The  acreage  in  each  of  the  other  twenty-four 
counties  which  produce  almonds  is  relatively  small. 

Of  the  101,691  acres  of  almonds  in  California  in  1927,  exclusive 
of  1926  plantings,  87,074  were  in  bearing  and  14,617  were  not  in 
bearing.  The  relative  importance  of  the  main  almond-producing 
counties  from  the  standpoint  of  bearing  acreage  is  shown  in  figure  2. 
The  three  counties  of  San  Luis  Obispo,  Yolo*,  and  Butte  contain 
;i  j) proximately  one-half  of  the  total  bearing  acreage  in  the  state,  and 
San  Luis  Obispo  County  alone  contains  over  one-fourth. 


Eul.  453] 


ALMONDS 


Almond  Acreage,  California,  1927    (Bearing  and  Non-Bearing) 


County 

Acreage 

Per  cent 

San  Luis  Obispo 
Yolo 

33,943 
12,195 
7,990 
6,138 
6,120 
5,141 
5,171 
4,103 
3,042 
2,943 
2,290 
2,260 
1,668 
1,332 
1,126 
1,056 
1,040 
4,133 

33.4 
12.0 

Butte 

7.9 

San  Joaquin 

Colusa 

6  0 

6.0 
5  1 

5  1 

4.0 

3  0 

Contra  Costa 

Sacramento 

Sutter 

2.9 
2  3 
2.2 

16 

1.3 

Los  Angeles 

1.1 
1.0 

Tulare  ... 

1.0 

Other  counties 

4  1 

Total 

101,691 

100  0 

•fcv.S 


Each  dot 
represents  500  acres 


Fig.  1. — Although  almonds  are  grown   in  forty-one  of  the  fifty-eight  counties 
in  the  state,  the  large  producing  areas  are  confined  to  comparatively  few  counties. 

Data   compiled  from  table  7. 


Upward  Trend  in  Bearing  Acreage  since  1914. — The  present  bear- 
ing acreage  of  87,074  acres  is  largely  a  result  of  a  relatively  recent 
growth.  For  many  years  before  1914  the  bearing  acreage  in  the  state 
remained  practically  stationary  at  about  15,000  acres.3     Some  plant- 


3  Thirteenth  Census  of  the   United  States   5:723. 
acres  on  the  basis  of  seventy  trees  per  acre. 


1910.      Trees  converted   to 


8  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

ings  were  made,  but  they  were  only  sufficient  to  replace  the  acreage 
taken  out.  Beginning  in  1915,  however,  the  bearing  acreage  has 
increased  rapidly  and  continuously.  Each  year  for  the  past  thirteen 
3rears  the  bearing  acreage  has  been  larger  than  it  was  in  the  preceding 
year.     This  is  shown  by  the  solid  black  bars  in  figure  3. 


Percentage  of  the  California  Bearing  Almond  Acreage  in  Main  Almond 
Producing  Counties,  1927 


County 
San  Lui6  Obispo 
Yolo 
Butte 

San  Joaquin 
Colusa 
Merced 
Stanislaus 
Monterey 
Glenn 

Contra  Costa 
Sutter 
Sacramento 
Solano 
Riverside 
Los  Angeles 
Tulare 
Tehama 

Other  counties 
Total 


87,074  100.0 


Fig.  2. — Approximately  one-half  of  the  bearing  almond  acreage  in  California 
is  in  the  three  counties  of  San  Luis  Obispo,  Yolo,  and  Butte. 

Data  from  table  7. 


A  large  part  of  the  enormous  increase  in  acreage  occurred  during 
a  period  when  almond  prices  were  relatively  low  as  compared  with 
the  prices  of  most  farm  products  (see  fig.  10,  p.  19).  It  is  evident, 
therefore,  that  factors  other  than  high  prices  furnished  the  main 
stimulus  for  the  large  plantings.  Probably  the  most  important  single 
factor  was  the  subdivision  activities  of  large  companies.  These  com- 
panies planted  almonds  on  their  lands  apparently  in  order  to  make 
them  more  salable. 


Bul.  453] 


ALMONDS 


Bearing  Acreage  of  Almonds  in  California,  1914-1927,  and  Forecast  of 
Bearing  Acreage,  1928-1930 


to  CO  CM  Oi  lO 


Fig.  3. — The  bearing  acreage  of  almonds  in  California  has  increased 

rapidly  and  continuously  since  1914. 

Data  from  table  6. 


Acreage  Planted  to  Almonds  in  California,  1921-1926 
Acres       9,003  6,677  6,921  1,363  1,182  1,156 


1921  1922  1923  1924  1925  1926 

Fig.  4. — Only  a  small  acreage  of  almonds  has  been  planted   in  California 
during  the  three  years  from  1924  to  1926 
Data   from   California   Cooperative"   Crop    Reporting    Service. 


10 


UNIVERSITY    OP    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


Forecast  of  Bearing  Acreage. — The  peak  in  this  upward  trend  in 
bearing  acreage  will  be  reached  in  1929,  according  to  the  forecasts  made 
by  the  California  Cooperative  Crop  Reporting  Service  (fig.  3).  At 
that  time  it  is  estimated  that  there  will  be  approximately  94,000  acres 
of  almonds  in  bearing,  or  7,000  acres  more  than  at  present.  During 
the  years  immediately  after  1929,  it  is  expected  that  the  acreage  will 
remain  stationary.    The  plantings  during  the  three  years  1924,  1925, 


Absolute  Increase  in  Bearing  Acreage  of  Almonds  in  Main  Producing 
Counties  in  California  from  1921  to  1927 


1,000  Acres 

County 

Acres    0              2               4             6 

8            1 

0 

12 

San  Luis  Obispo 

Yolo 

4,6do  nnHI 

Colusa 

4,326  JH9QBB 

Monterey 

3,928  bHHEttBHSB 

Merced 

2,405  ■■■■I 

Stanislaus 

1,386  Eg 

Butte 

1,337  IHB 

San  Joaquin 

822  IB 

Glenn 

818  p| 

Tulare 

486  ■ 

Sutter 

451  ■ 

Contra  Costa 

300  ■ 

Los  Angeles 

291  E 

Riverside 

270  E 

Tehama 

264  I 

Sacramento 

110  f 

Others 

444  ■ 

Total 

44,510  f 

Fig.  5. — One-half  of  the  total  increase  in  bearing-  acreage  since  1921 

has  occurred  in  San  Luis  Obispo  County. 

Data  compiled  from  table   7. 


and  1926  amounted  to  only  1,200  acres  on  the  average  as  compared 
with  9,000  acres  in  1921  (fig.  4).  It  is  doubtful  if  the  planting  of 
only  1,200  acres  a  year  will  more  than  fully  replace  the  acreage  which 
will  normally  go  out  of  bearing.  It  seems  likely,  therefore,  that  after 
1929  there  will  be  no  further  increase  in  bearing  acreage  for  at  least 
three  years.  What  takes  place  after  that  will  depend  upon  the  extent 
of  plantings  during  the  coming  years. 

Where  the  Increase  in  Bearing  Acreage  since  1921  Has  Occurred. — 
Figure  5  shows  where  the  increase  from  42,564  acres  in  1921  to  87,074 
acres  in  1927  has  occurred.    It  is  particularly  striking  that  an  increase 


BUL.  453]  ALMONDS  11 

of  22,242  acres,  which  is  equal  to  one-half  of  the  total  increase  in  the 
state,  has  taken  place  in  one  county  alone — San  Luis  Obispo — and 
that  90  per  cent  of  the  total  increase  occurred  in  the  seven  counties 
of  San  Luis  Obispo,  Yolo,  Colusa,  Monterey,  Merced,  Stanislaus,  and 
Butte. 

Location  of  Non-Bearing  Acreage,  1927. — Of  the  14,617  acres  of 
almonds  not  in  bearing  in  California  in  1927,  exclusive  of  1926  plant- 
ings, 9,701  acres,  or  two-thirds  of  the  total,  were  in  San  Luis  Obispo 
County.  The  non-bearing  acreage  in  each  of  the  other  counties  was 
relatively  small.  Only  three  of  them — Yolo,  Stanislaus,  and  Colusa — 
contained  over  200  acres  each.  Yolo  had  1,565  acres  not  in  bearing, 
Stanislaus,  668  acres,  and  Colusa,  544  acres.  These  three  counties 
together  with  San  Luis  Obispo  County,  contained  12,498  acres,  or 
85.5  per  cent  of  the  state  total. 

The  figures  on  non-bearing  acreage  given  above,  together  with  the 
figures  on  bearing  acreage  given  on  page  8,  indicate  the  importance 
of  the  Paso  Robles  district,  which  includes  San  Luis  Obispo  and 
Monterey  counties,  from  the  standpoint  of  almond  acreage.  Taking 
into  consideration  the  present  acreage  coming  into  bearing,  it  is 
estimated  that  by  1930  this  one  district  will  have  at  least  34,000  acres 
in  bearing,  or  over  one-third  of  the  total  forecasted  bearing  acreage 
in  the  state.  In  1921  this  district  had  less  than  5  per  cent  of  the 
bearing  acreage. 

ALMOND   PRODUCTION   IN   CALIFORNIA 

Upward  Trend  of  Production. — The  relative  changes  in  the  pro- 
duction of  almonds  in  California  between  1914  and  1927  are  shown 
in  figure  6.  One  type  of  change  shown  in  this  curve  of  production 
is  a  pronounced  upward  trend.  The  average  production  of  almonds 
in  1914  amounted  to  2,600  tons  as  compared  with  the  present  average 
production  of  13,000  tons.  This  is  an  increase  of  10,400  tons,  or  400 
per  cent  during  a  period  of  thirteen  years.  Since  1919  the  upward 
trend  has  been  characterized  by  a  uniform  amount  of  increase  rather 
than  by  a  uniform  rate  of  increase.  Each  year  for  the  past  eight  years 
the  average  production  of  almonds,  as  indicated  by  the  line  of.  trend, 
has  been  about  900  tons  larger  than  in  the  preceding  year.  Relative 
to  the  size  of  the  crop,  however,  the  average  increase  is  less  now  than 
formerly.  For  example,  the  average  increase  of  900  tons  between  1926 
and  1927  was  an  increase  of  only  7.4  per  cent;  whereas  the  same 
increase  in  tons  between  1919  and  1920  was  an  increase  of  15.5  per 
cent.  Thus  the  trend  line  in  figure  6,  which  is  plotted  on  a  relative 
basis,  shows  a  decided  tendency  to  level  off. 


12  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

Fluctuations  in  Production. — The  second  type  of  change  shown  in 
the  curve  of  production  in  figure  6  is  the  short-time  fluctuations.  The 
production  of  almonds  fluctuates  widely  from  year  to  year,  being 
sometimes  much  above  and  sometimes  much  below  the  average.  These 
fluctuations  cannot  generally  be  controlled  by  the  growers,  since  they 
are  caused  in  the  main  by  variations  in  climatic  conditions.  Almonds 
are  particularly  subject  to  damage  by  frost.  In  some  sections  the 
hazard  from  frost  is  being  overcome  by  orchard  heating,  but  as  yet 
this  practice  is  not  extensive.  Again,  since  a  large  proportion  of  the 
almond  orchards  are  not  irrigated,  variations  in  the  amount  and 
distribution  of  the  rainfall  from  year  to  year  result  in  considerable 
fluctuations  in  production.  According  to  Taylor  and  Philp,  "Con- 
tinued rainy,  damp  and  cold  weather  at  blooming  time  is  apt  to 
destroy  the  pollen  and  thus  prevent  the  fertilization,  without  which 
a  crop  is  impossible."4  The  growth  of  'shothole'  fungus  in  the 
blossoms  and  fruit  is  also  encouraged  by  much  damp  weather  in  the 
spring,  which  often  causes  the  loss  of  a  considerable  portion  of  the 
crop. 

The  tendency  has  been  for  these  fluctuations  in  production  to 
become  greater,  both  absolutely  and  relatively.  The  greater  relative 
fluctuations  during  recent  years  as  compared  with  earlier  years  is 
shown  in  figure  6.  The  average  variation  in  production  during  the 
five-year  period  from  1914  to  1918,  amounted  to  17  per  cent,  as  com- 
pared with  the  average  variation  of  44  per  cent  during  the  last  five 
years.  This  indicates  that  the  recent  plantings  were  more  generally 
made  in  localities  in  which  the  variations  in  climatic  conditions  are 
pronounced. 

These  wide  fluctuations  in  production  from  year  to  year  complicate 
the  marketing  problem.  In  order  to  dispose  of  the  large  crop  in  1926, 
for  example,  it  was  necessary  for  the  marketing  organizations  in  Cali- 
fornia to  obtain  many  new  customers.  Many  of  the  new  customers 
had  previously  bought  foreign  almonds.  If  their  trade  is  to  be 
retained,  it  is  necessary  that  the  marketing  organizations  in  this  state 
be  able  to  supply  them  regularly  with  their  future  requirements.  If 
this  cannot  be  clone,  some  of  them  may  resume  the  purchase  of  foreign 
almonds.  It  may  be  more  difficult  to  persuade  them  to  buy  California 
almonds  again,  after  having  once  obtained  and  lost  their  business.5 

Yield  per  Acre. — The  rapid  increase  in  almond  production  has 
been  accompanied  by  a  decline  in  yield  per  acre.     The   1914-1916 

4  Taylor,  R.  H.,  and  G.  L.  Philp.  The  almond  in  California.  California  Agr. 
Exp.  Sta.  Circ.  284:11.     1923. 

s  Tucker,  T.  C.  Seventeenth  annual  report  of  the  manager.  The  Minute 
Book  1(22)  :8.     1927. 


Bul.  453] 


ALMONDS 


13 


average  yield  per  acre  amounted  to  336  pounds,  the  1925-1927  average 
yield  to  306  pounds.  This  is  a  decrease  of  30  pounds,  or  9  per  cent. 
Although  a  decrease  of  30  pounds  per  acre  does  not  appear  to  be 
great,  it  means,  when  applied  to  the  present  bearing  acreage  in  the 
state,  that  the  production  is  1,300  tons  smaller  than  it  would  have 
been  had  no  decline  in  yield  occurred. 

Production  of  Almonds,  California,  1914-1927 


o 

o 

o 

o 

8 

o 

m  to 

a  cm 

o 
to 

o 

<* 

8 

to 

CM 

O      * 

E-"  CM 

to 

to 

■* 

10 

t» 

15 

-P         8 

o 

6 


3       4 


8 


TREN 

D_>> 

CM  tO 

CM  CM 

o>  o> 


Fig.  6. — There  has  been  a  pronounced  upward  trend  in  almond  production 

in  California  since  1914. 

Data  from  table  6. 


A  portion  of  this  decline  in  yield  is  probably  only  temporary, 
however.  A  relatively  large  proportion  of  the  trees  listed  as  bearing 
in  the  last  five  years  were  not  yet  in  full  bearing.6  Consequently  there 
may  be  some  increase  in  yield  during  the  next  few  years  as  a  result 
of  the  increase  in  the  average  age  of  the  trees.  Again,  some  decline 
in  yield  may  have  occurred  because  of  the  neglect  of  the  orchards 
during  the  period  of  relatively  low  almond  prices.7  With  consider- 
ably higher  prices  now  prevailing,  it  is  likely  that  growers  will  find 


(i  The  age  at  which  an  almond  tree  is  considered  to  be  in  bearing  varies  in 
different  sections  of  the  state.  For  the  state  as  a  whole  the  average  is  about 
five  years.  Taylor  and  Philp  point  out  that  almond  trees  should  continue  to 
increase  in  production  from  year  to  year,  allowing  for  failures  due  to  frost  and 
unfavorable  conditions,  from  the  time  they  come  into  bearing  up  to  twelve 
years  of  age. 

7  See  page  11. 


14 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


it  worth  while  to  take  better  care  of  their  orchards,  which  may  result 
in  increased  yields.  On  the  other  hand,  a  part  of  the  decline  in  yield 
is  likely  to  be  permanent.  The  available  data  indicates  that  the  newer 
plantings  were  generally  made  in  sections  less  adapted  to  high 
production. 

The  most  serious  aspect  of  the  average  yield  of  almonds  in  this 
state  is  not  that  it  has  declined,  since  a  part  of  the  decline  is  only 
temporary,  but  that  it  is  low.  A  yield  of  only  306  pounds  per  acre, 
which  was  the  average  for  the  state  during  the  three  years  from  1925 
to  1927,  effectively  prevents  a  satisfactory  income.  Even  with  the 
relatively  high  prices  which  prevailed  during  these  three  years,  the 
average  gross  income  amounted  to  less  than  $60  per  acre.  From  a 
survey  of  149  orchards  in  1925,  Adams  found  that  it  cost  $46.60  per 
acre  on  the  average  to  pay  the  actual  operating  expenses.8  After 
deducting,  in  addition  to  the  actual  operating  expenses,  interest  on 
investment,  depreciation  on  trees,  and  a  charge  for  the  use  of  operat- 
ing capital,  it  is  evident  that  there  is  very  little,  if  any,  left  to  pay  the 
farmer  for  his  work  as  manager. 


TABLE  1 

Almonds,  California — Eelation  of  Yield  per  Acre  to  Cost  of 
Production,  1925 


Average 
yield 
pounds 

Average  cost 

per  pound 

cents 

Number  of 
orchards 

Acreage 

35.3 
14.6 
10.7 
9.8 
6.8 

44 
43 
29 
19 
14 

1,755 

250  to  500 

1,279 

500  to  750 

804 

750  to  1,000 

525 

1,000  and  over 

214 

Source  of  data:   Adams,  R.  L.,  Cost  of  producing  almonds  in  California,  a  progress  report.  California 
Agr.  Exp.  Sta.  Bui.  442:49.   1927. 


That  larger  returns  may  be  obtained  by  increasing  yields  is  shown 
in  table  1.  The  average  cost  per  pound  in  1925  on  forty-four  orchards 
having  a  yield  of  less  than  250  pounds  per  acre,  was  35.3  cents;  on 
the  other  hand,  the  average  cost  per  pound  on  fourteen  orchards 
having  a  yield  of  1,000  pounds  and  over  per  acre,  was  only  6.8  cents. 
Growers  having  the  high-yielding  orchards  made  a  profit ;  those  having 
the  low-yielding  orchards  could  scarcely  have  made  a  profit  if  the 
prices  had  been  twice  as  high. 


s  Adams,  K.  L.     Cost  of  producing  almonds  in  California,  a  progress  report. 
California  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.  Bui.  422:46.     1927. 


Bul.  453 


ALMONDS 


15 


VARIETIES    OF    ALMONDS 

Principal  Varieties  Grown  in  California. — There  are  many  varie- 
ties of  almonds  grown  in  California,  but  only  a  few  of  them  are  of 
commercial  importance.  The  principal  commercial  varieties  are  the 
Nonpareil,  IXL,  Ne  Plus  Ultra,  Drake,  Texas,  and  Peerless.  These 
six  varieties  constitute  approximately  93  per  cent  of  the  total  crop. 
Their  relative  importance  during  the  past  four  years  is  shown  in 
figure  7.    The  Nonpareil  occupies  first  place  with  25.1  per  cent  of  the 


Relative  Importance  of  Principal  Varieties  of  Almonds  in  California, 

Average,  1923-1926 

Per  cent 
5  10  15  20  25 


Variety 

ver 
cent 

Nonparei 1 

25.1 

Drake 

HO. 5 

Texas 

17.0 

Ne  Plus  Ultra 

12.3 

IXL 

11.8 

Peerless 

6.0 

Others 

7.3 

Fig.  7. — The  Nonpareil  is  the  most  important  almond  variety  grown 

in  California. 

Data  compiled  from  California  Almond  Growers  Exchange.    The  Minute  Book  1(22)  :10.  1927. 


total  production.  The  Drake  is  next  in  importance  with  20.5  per 
cent,  followed  by  the  Texas,  Ne  Plus  Ultra,  IXL,  and  Peerless  in  the 
order  named.  The  three  papershell  varieties — Nonpareil,  IXL,  and 
Ne  Plus  Ultra — which  are  also  the  high-priced  varieties,  together 
constitute  49.1  per  cent  of  the  total  crop. 

Choice  of  Varieties  to  Plant. — The  growers'  choice  of  varieties  to 
plant  is  limited  to  some  extent  by  the  fact  that  practically  all  of  the 
varieties  are  self-sterile  and  some  of  them  are  even  inter-sterile. 
Taylor  and  Philp9  point  out  that  it  is  necessary  to  interplant  varieties 
which  are  inter  fertile  and  which  blossom  at  about  the  same  time  in 
order  to  insure  proper  pollination.  Consequently  a  number  of 
different  varieties  are  found  in  each  orchard. 


9  Taylor,  E.  H.,  and  G.  L.  Philp.     The  almond  in  California.     California  Agr. 
Exp.  Sta.  Cir.  284:5.     1925. 


16 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


After  providing  for  adequate  pollination,  however,  many  growers 
have  the  choice  of  planting  any  one  of  the  several  varieties,  since 
there  is  no  great  difference  in  the  behavior  of  them  under  favorable 
conditions.  The  varieties  that  it  will  be  most  profitable  to  plant  can 
be  determined,  at  least  partially,  by  a  comparison  of  the  gross  returns 
per  acre,  obtained  by  multiplying  the  average  yields  per  acre  by  the 
average  prices  per  pound.  The  yields  which  growers  should  consider 
are  the  average  yields  for  a  period  of  years,  which  have  been  obtained 
under  their  particular  conditions.  The  relative  yields  of  the  different 
varieties  will,  of  course,  vary  from  district  to  district,  but  for  the 
state  as  a  whole  Taylor  and  Philp  (p.  51)  believe  that  the  Nonpareil 
and  the  Drake  will  produce  larger  yields  on  the  average  than  the 
IXL  or  Ne  Plus  Ultra, 

Prices  Paid  to  Growers  for  Nonpareil,  IXL,  Ne  Plus  Ultra,  and  Drake, 

Average,  1922-1926 

Cents  per  pound 

0  5  10  15  20 

Variety 

Nonparei 1 


IXL 


Ne  Plus  Ultra  16.8 


Drake 


Fig.  8. — The  differences  in  the  lengths  of  the  bars  show  the  normal  price 

differentials  between  these  four  varieties  of  almonds  since  1921. 

Data  compiled  from  table   8. 


Average  Price  Differentials  between  Varieties. — Growers  should 
give  consideration  not  only  to  the  average  yields,  but  also  to  the 
average  prices  which  have  prevailed  over  a  period  of  years.  The 
average  prices  of  the  four  varieties  Nonpareil,  IXL,  Ne  Plus  Ultra, 
and  Drake  for  the  five-year  period  from  1922  to  1926  are  given  in 
figure  8.  The  Nonpareil  has  averaged  the  highest  in  price  with  a 
differential  in  its  favor  of  2.41  cents  above  the  IXL,  3.19  cents  above 
the  Ne  Plus  Ultra,  and  8.41  cents  above  the  Drake. 

The  Nonpareil  and  IXL  are  equally  attractive  for  table  use.  The 
higher  price  of  Nonpareil  is  largely  due  to  the  fact  that  it  lias  an 
additional  outlet,  the  shelled  market.  The  IXL  cannot  profitably  be 
shelled  because  of  the  low  percentage  of  meats.  This  is  also  true  of 
the  Ne  Plus  Ultra.     From  the  standpoint  of  table  use,  the  Ne  Plus 


Bul.  453 


ALMONDS 


17 


Ultra  is  less  attractive  than  the  Nonpareil  and  IXL  because  of  its 
tendency  to  have  gummy  kernels,  The  relatively  low  price  of  Drakes 
is  largely  due  to  the  fact  that  it  has  a  medium-thick  hard  shell  which 
is  not  easily  broken  with  the  fingers,  and  a  low  percentage  of  meats. 
Because  of  the  low  percentage  of  meats,  it  has  not  been  profitable  to 
shell  the  Drake.  Consequently  it  has  been  marketed  entirely  in  the 
shell,  and  as  a  table  nut  it  cannot  compete  with  the  papershell 
varieties. 


Relative  Prices  of  Almonds  and  All  Commodities,  1910-1927 
(Average  1910-1914  =  100) 


All 

c onmoa i t i 9 3 


Almonds 


•o  JO  to 


226 
200 
175 
150 
125 
100 
75 
0 


+ 

\ 

s' 

/ 

\ 
\ 

c< 

AL 

L 
DDIT 

ES 

i 

• 

• 

1 

* 

\ 

\ 
\ 

/ 
/ 

\ 
\ 

. 

"""<«.  ^ 

S) 

^ 

/ 

/ 

\ 

/ 

/    y 

\ 

/  A 

LMC 

NDS 

/ 

! 

r 

■ 

~rT~T~ 

~ 

O         fH        CJ  tO 


m«ot>-eoo>Or-)«vjto^<       io<ot- 

»HiHrHrHr-»fHr-tCM<VJNCvJCMeMCMW 
00>0>0>0>0>0)0)0>0>0>0>0>0>0> 


Fig.  9.— During  tlie  war,  prices  of  all  commodities  advanced  much  higher 
than  the  prices  of  almonds  and  have  stayed  at  a  higher  level  since  the  war. 

Data  from  table  8. 

The  price  differential  between  Drakes  and  the  papershell  varieties 
is  much  greater  now  than  before  the  war.  Between  1910  and  1914 
Drakes  brought,  on  the  average,  72.5  per  cent  of  the  price  of  Non- 
pareils, as  compared  with  57.8  per  cent  during  the  last  five  years. 


PRICES   AND    PURCHASING    POWER 

Annual  Average  Prices. — The  annual  average  prices  which  growers 
have  received  for  their  almonds  since  1910  are  shown  by  the  solid  line 
in  figure  9.  Between  1915  and  1919  the  prices  of  almonds  increased 
substantially.  It  is  misleading,  however,  to  assume  that  almond 
growers  were  as  much  more  prosperous  in  1919  than  in  1915  as  is 


18  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT   STATION 

shown  by  the  rise  in  prices.  Their  expenses  also  increased  during  this 
period,  as  is  shown  by  the  broken  line  which  represents  the  prices  of 
all  commodities.  In  fact,  the  prices  of  all  commodities  increased  even 
more  than  the  price  of  almonds,  so  that  almond  growers  were  really 
not  as  well  off  in  1919  as  in  1915 ;  that  is,  almond  growers  could  not 
buy  as  much  of  other  commodities  with  the  money  they  received  for 
a  pound  of  almonds  in  1919  as  they  could  in  1915.  In  order  to  obtain 
a  correct  picture  of  the  influence  of  changing  prices  upon  the  pros- 
perity of  the  growers,  it  is  necessary  to  correct  the  prices  of  the 
particular  product  which  the  grower  sells  by  the  prices  of  the  things 
he  buys,  We  then  obtain  a  figure  commonly  known  as  purchasing 
power. 

Trend  of  Purchasing  Power. — The  annual  average  purchasing 
power  of  almonds  from  1910  to  1927  is  shown  by  the  solid  black  line 
in  figure  10.  Significant  changes  in  the  trend  of  purchasing  power 
have  occurred  during  this  period.  These  changes  have  been  largely 
a  result  of  changes  in  the  per-capita  supply  of  almonds  available  for 
consumption  in  the  United  States.  The  per-capita  supply  is  shown 
by  the  broken  line  in  figure  10.  During  the  first  five  years  of  this 
period  no  definite  upward  or  downward  trend  in  purchasing  power 
is  apparent,  and  likewise  the  supply  of  almonds  remained  practically 
stationary,  at  least  for  the  twro  years  for  which  data  are  available. 
Between  1915  and  1920,  however,  there  was  a  definite  downward  trend 
in  purchasing  power.  The  most  important  cause  of  this  downward 
trend  was  the  rapid  increase  in  the  per-capita  supply,  which  rose 
from  an  average  of  0.48  pounds  in  1914-1915  to  an  average  of  0.88 
pounds  in  1918-1919.  Consumers  would  not  buy  this  greatly  increased 
quantity  except  at  relatively  lower  prices.  The  increase  in  the  supply 
of  almonds  during  this  period  was  a  result  of  two  conditions:  (1)  the 
increased  production  in  California  (see  p.  11),  and  (2)  the  increased 
imports  from  Europe  (see  p.  21). 

After  1920  the  trend  of  purchasing  power  turned  upward,  and  has 
continued  upward  since  then.  However,  it  has  not  yet  reached  the 
level  that  it  occupied  before  the  war.  This  upward  trend  in  purchas- 
ing power  was  largely  a  result  of  the  decline  in  the  supplies  available 
for  consumption.  The  substantial  increase  in  California  production 
was  not  sufficient  to  offset  the  large  decrease  in  imports. 

A  further  substantial  increase  in  purchasing  power  during  the 
next  few  years  should  not  be  expected.  The  supplies  of  almonds  in 
this  country  are  not  likely  to  fall  much  below  the  present  level. 
California  production  has  not  yet  reached  the  peak,  and  a  further 
decrease  in  imports  is  not  likely. 


Bul.  453 


ALMONDS 


19 


United  States  Per-Capita  Supply  of  Almonds  (Average  1913-1915  =  100)  and 
Purchasing  Power  of  California  Almonds  (Average  1910-1914  =  100) 


Por-capita 
Supply 

Purchasing 
Power 


si 


<0        .H        W        O        O 


180 
140 

100 
80 

60 
40 


1        1         1 
PER-CAPITA 

Jt 

v 

SUPPLY 

L\ 

.' 

t* 

\ 

1 
1 

""* 

—* 

N- 

V 

/ 

«-- 

V 

^v.^ 

PURCHASING 

HO 

WLH 

O         r-l  «VJ         tO  ■«* 

iH         iH         iH         rH         r-l 

Ci        C>         O)        CI        G) 


tO  fc»  CO  C>  O  iH  CM  (Q  «*  IO  <0  C- 
H  H  H  H  N  N  CM  CM  CM  CM  CM  CM 
O>0>00>0>0>         0>0>0>0>0>0> 


Fig.  10. — Changes  in  the  trend  of  purchasing  power  of  California  almonds 
were  caused  mainly  by  changes  in  the  United  States  per-capita  supply  of  almonds. 

Data  from  tables  8  and  9. 


Production  and  Purchasing  Power  of  California  Almonds,  1922-1926 

Production 


100  tons 


85 


Purchasing        ^ 
Power 

200 
180 

160 
140 
120 
100 

80 
60 

40 


110 
57 


80 
73 


75 

97 


160 
77 


120 

85 


^ 

/ 
/ 

\ 

-** 

>N^ 

/ 

/ 

.." 

\. 

*>«^/ 

/^^**«*»^ 

^^          ••»», 

t 

^X^PURCHASIN 
POWER 

G 

1922 


1923 


1924 


1925 


1926 


1927 


Fig.  11. — An  important  cause  for  the  fluctuations  in  the  purchasing  power  of 
almonds  from  year  to  year  is  variations  in  domestic  production. 

Data  from  tables  6  and  8. 


20  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

Fluctuations  in  Purchasing  Power*  from  Year  to  Year. — The  pur- 
chasing power  of  almonds  fluctuates  widely  from  year  to  year.  These 
fluctuations  are  caused  by  many  factors.  One  of  the  most  important 
is  changes  in  the  domestic  production.  The  close  relationship  between 
changes  in  production  and  changes  in  purchasing  power  for  the  past 
six  years  is  shown  in  figure  11.  Throughout  this  period  purchasing 
power  varied  inversely  with  production.  High  production  was  accom- 
panied by  low  purchasing  power ;  low  production  by  high  purchasing 
power. 

This  relationship  is  not  perfect,  however,  showing  that  other  factors 
besides  domestic  production  affect  prices.  One  of  these  factors  is 
imports.  In  turn,  imports  are  affected  by  the  prices  in  this  country. 
Without  a  very  detailed  analysis,  which  is  beyond  the  scope  of  this 
bulletin,  it  is  not  possible  to  measure  the  relationship  between  imports 
and  domestic  prices.  In  general,  however,  high  domestic  prices  tend 
to  stimulate  imports,  and  increased  imports  tend  to  check  any  further 
rise  in  domestic  prices. 

UNITED   STATES  CONSUMPTION   OF  ALMONDS 

During  the  past  three  years,  the  United  States  has  consumed  an 
average  of  39,486  tons  in  equivalent  of  unshelled  almonds  annually. 
This  amounts  to  0.68  pounds  for  each  person.  The  relative  changes 
in  the  estimated  per-capita  consumption  of  almonds  in  the  United 
States  between  1913  and  1926  are  represented  by  the  broken  line  in 
figure  10. 10  Although  the  present  per-capita  consumption  is  relatively 
small,  it  is  substantially  larger  than  before  the  war,  when  it  amounted 
to  only  0.48  pounds  annually.  The  increase  between  1913-1915  and 
1924-1926  has  amounted,  therefore,  to  0.20  pounds,  or  42  per  cent. 

One  reason  for  this  increase  has  been  the  decline  of  17  per  cent  in 
the  purchasing  power  of  almonds  between  1913-1915  and  1924-1926. 
Consumers  can  now  buy  almonds  relatively  cheaper  than  they  could 
before  the  war.  Consequently  they  eat  more  of  them.  The  lower 
purchasing  power  of  almonds,  however,  does  not  account  for  all  of 
the  increase  in  per-capita  consumption,  since  per-capita  consumption 
has  increased  much  more  than  purchasing  power  has  declined.  There 
has  been  a  real  increase  in  the  demand  for  almonds.  A  real  increase 
in  the  demand  for  a  commodity  has  occurred  when  consumers  buy 
more  of  that  commodity  at  the  same  price  or  buy  the  same  amount  of 
that  commodity  at  a  higher  price,  assuming,  of  course,  that  there  has 
been  no  change  in  the  value  of  the  dollar. 

io  Carryover  data  on  almonds  are  not  available.  Consequently  the  best 
estimates  of  per-capita  consumption  of  almonds  are  the  per-capita  supplies  of 
almonds  available  for  consumption. 


BUL.  453]  ALMONDS  21 

The  increased  demand  for  almonds  has  been  largely  a  result  of  the 
more  extensive  use  of  shelled  almcnds.  The  bakery  and  confectionery 
trades  are  now  using  a  larger  volume  of  almonds  in  the  preparation 
of  their  products  than  they  did  a  few  years  ago.  The  amount  of  this 
increase  cannot  be  measured  accurately,  because  data  on  the  amount 
of  almonds  shelled  in  California  are  not  available.  A  fairly  definite 
idea,  however,  can  be  obtained  from  the  proportion  that  is  imported 
in  the  shelled  and  unshelled  forms.  During  the  past  three  years,  95.3 
per  cent  of  the  total  imports  were  shelled  as  compared  with  89.7  per 
cent  during  the  three  years  from  1913  to  1915.  Imports  of  unshelled 
almonds  were  40  per  cent  smaller  in  1924—1926  than  in  1913-1915, 
while  imports  of  shelled  almonds  were  42  per  cent  larger. 

This  information  indicates  that  there  has  been  little  if  any  increase 
in  the  per-capita  consumption  of  unshelled  almonds.  The  market  for 
unshelled  almonds  is  essentially  a  seasonal  one  and  of  short  duration. 
The  bulk  of  them  are  consumed  during  the  holidays. 

Just  how  much  effect  the  prospective  increase  in  production  of 
walnuts  and  pecans  will  have  upon  the  demand  for  almonds  is  not 
certain.  It  seems  probable,  however,  that  almonds  will  be  subjected 
to  keener  competition  in  the  consuming  markets  during  the  next  few 
years  than  they  have  been  in  the  past.  Large  plantings  of  walnuts 
have  been  made  in  California  during  recent  years,  a  substantial  part 
of  which  have  not  yet  reached  the  full  bearing  age.  Pecan  acreage 
in  the  southern  states,  particularly  in  Georgia  and  Texas,  has  also 
been  increasing  very  fast.  In  1924  over  one-half  of  the  total  pecan 
acreage  in  the  United  States  was  not  yet  in  bearing. 

UNITED  STATES   IMPORTS  OF   ALMONDS 

Although  the  production  of  almonds  in  the  United  States  has 
increased  substantially  (fig.  6),  the  nation  now  produces  only  26.5 
per  cent  of  the  almonds  consumed  in  this  country  (fig.  12).  Before 
the  war  the  proportion  was  still  smaller,  amounting  to  only  11.3  per 
cent. 

Changes  in  Almond  Imports. — The  changes  in  almond  imports,  in 
equivalent  of  unshelled  almonds,  between  1913  and  1926  are  shown 
in  figure  13.  Before  1916,  imports  remained  fairly  stable  at  about 
22,000  tons  a  year.  Beginning  in  1916,  however,  imports  began4o  rise 
rapidly.  They  continued  upward  until  1919,  reaching  a  high  point  of 
43,167  tons  in  that  year.  A  large  part  of  this  increase  was  probably 
due  to  the  dislocation  of  the  European  markets  during  the  war.  In 
1920,  imports  were  reduced  by  aln  ost  one-half.     This  great  decline 


22  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

was  only  temporary,  however.     The  following  year  they  were  almost 
as  large  as  in  1919. 

Since  1921  imports  have  declined  rapidly  and  continuously.  Each 
year  for  the  past  five  years  imports  have  been  smaller  than  in  the 
preceding  year.    Three  factors  have  contributed  to  this  decline : 

(1)  In  1922  the  tariff  on  shelled  almonds  was  increased  from 
4  cents  a  pound  to  14  cents  a  pound,  and  on  unshelled  almonds  from 
3  cents  a  pound  to  4.75  cents  a  pound.  Since  approximately  95  per 
cent  of  the  total  imports  are  shelled,  the  increase  of  10  cents  a  pound 
in  the  tariff  has  probably  had  a  favorable  effect  upon  the  almond 
situation  in  the  United  States. 

Percentage  of  the  United  States  Supply  of  Almonds  Produced  in  California 
and  Imported  from  Foreign  Countries,  Avekage  1914-1916  and  1924-1926 

Calif,     Imported 

Average  1914-16         11.3  88.7 

Average  1924-26         26.5  73.5 

California 
Imported 

Fig.   12. — Although  the  proportion  of  the  United  States  supply  of  almonds 
produced  in  this  country  has  increased  substantially,  it  is  still  relatively  small. 

Data  compiled  from  table  9. 

(2)  Some  of  the  European  countries  which  had  greatly  reduced 
their  purchases  of  almonds  during  and  immediately  after  the  war 
have  come  back  into  the  market.  In  1925  Germany  purchased  35  per 
cent  of  the  total  exports  from  Italy,  as  compared  with  10  per  cent  in 
1923.  On  the  other  hand,  only  14  per  cent  of  the  Italian  exports  were 
sent  to  the  United  States  in  1925,  as  compared  with  26  per  cent  in 
1923. 

(3)  During  recent  years  considerable  effort  has  been  made  by  the 
marketing  organization  in  California  to  increase  the  sale  of  shelled 
almonds.  For  example,  the  California  Almond  Growers  Exchange 
has  increased  its  sale  of  shelled  almonds  from  133,000  pounds  in  1922 
to  3,852,000  pounds  in  1926.  Until  recent  years  it  was  the  general 
opinion  of  the  trade  that  the  quality  of  California  shelled  almonds 
was  inferior  to  those  imported  from  Europe.  This  opinion  has  been 
largely  changed.  According  to  the  reports  of  the  California  Almond 
Growers  Exchange,  many  buyers  who  had  previously  used  only 
imported  almonds  are  now  using  large  quantities  of  domestic  almonds. 


Bul.  453] 


ALMONDS 


23 


It  should  not  be  assumed,  however,  that  there  will  be  a  further 
substantial  decrease  in  imports  during  the  next  few  years.  It  is  prob- 
able that  the  most  pronounced  effect  of  the  first  two  of  the  factors 
mentioned  above  has  already  occurred.  The  rise  in  almond  prices  in 
this  country  has  made  it  easier  for  importers  to  pay  the  additional 
tariff  duty.  European  markets  have  made  a  considerable  recovery, 
and  it  is  not  likely  that  they  will  increase  their  purchases  of  almonds 
as  much  during  the  next  few  years  as  they  have  during  the  past  few 
years.     The  present  normal  production  in  the  main  foreign  almond- 


Tons 


United  States  Imports  of  Almonds,  1913-1926 
(In  equivalent  of  unshelled) 


t- 

t- 

to 

H 

t- 

«o 

CM 

oo 

to 

<o 

o 

«-c 

•* 

e» 

rM 

<0  at 

r-t  <D 

t-  co 


40 


35 


30 


25 


20 


15 


y 

y 

1 

V 

/ 

< 

\ 

/ 

\ 

' 

/ 

\ 

/ 

\ 

/ 

1 

F 

I— 

L 

Ln_i. 

i     f — i     r     HT — p" — t — i — i — "H — t — i — 1 

CD               G 

■i                r 

0              « 

-t          1- 

T>               C 

>          t 

i               r 

■>          c 

0 
-1               r 

n            c 

0             0 

•i             r 

r>          o 

>  < 
*          c 

>  c 

T>              0 

*               C 

i            c 
->           c 

J         p 

J            c 

1           c 

l>               0 

J            c 
t            c 

5             <D 
J                CM 

Year  beginning  July  1 

Fig.  13. — Imports  have  declined  steadily  since  1921,  and  at  the  present 

time  they  are  close  to  the  pre-war  level. 

Data  from  table  9. 


producing  countries  is  fully  as  large  as  it  was  a  few  years  ago.  Most 
of  these  countries  produce  a  much  larger  volume  of  almonds  than  they 
consume;  consequently  the  surplus  must  be  sold  in  other  countries. 
The  United  States  has  long  been  an  important  market  for  a  portion 
of  this  surplus. 

Seasonal  Variation  in  Imports. — The  average  monthly  imports  of 
almonds  for  the  four-year  period  beginning  September,  1923,  are 
shown  in  figure  14.  The  black  portion  of  the  bars  represent  the 
imports  of  unshelled  almonds,  and  the  shaded  portion,  the  shelled 
almonds  in  equivalent  of  unshelled.  The  imports  of  all  almonds  are 
normally  heaviest  during  the  four  months  from  October  to  January, 


24 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


with  the  peak  of  imports  usually  in  November.  Approximately  58 
per  cent  of  the  total  imports  are  received  during  these  four  months. 
After  January,  imports  beg-in  to  decline,  although  they  are  of  sub- 
stantial volume  until  May.  During  the  next  five  months,  however, 
they  are  relatively  small,  amounting  on  the  average  to  only  14.5  per 
cent  of  the  total  for  the  year. 

Monthly  Imports  of  Almonds,  United  States,  Average  1923-1924  to  1926-1927 


iH 

<0 

5° 

CO 

<0 

00 

CM 

o> 

CM 

Shelled* 

to 

10 

to 

o 

CO 

o 

CM 

to 

CO 

o> 

CM 

to 

CM 
•H 

8 

A 

A 

•> 

to 

IO 

"<*• 

<«• 

to 

CM 

CM 

rH 

Dnshelled 

Eh 

to 
in 

to 
o> 

r-4 
CM 

"* 

O 
CM 

iH 

a 
o 
-p 

«H       3 


Fig.  14. — Over  one-half  of  the  United  States  imports  of  almonds  come  in 
during  the  four  months  from  October  to  January. 
Data  from  table  11. 
*  Shelled  converted  to  unshelled  equivalents. 


The  importing  season  on  unshelled  almonds  is  relatively  short. 
The  bulk  of  them  come  in  during  the  two  months  of  October  and 
November.  The  chief  reason  for  this  is  that  the  principal  demand  for 
unshelled  almonds  is  during  the  holiday  season.  As  compared  with 
total  imports,  however,  the  imports  of  unshelled  almonds  are  never 
very  large.  Even  during  October,  when  they  are  heaviest,  they 
amount  to  only  19.4  per  cent  of  the  total  imports. 

Origin  of  Imports. — The  bulk  of  the  United  States  imports  of 
almonds  comes  from  two  European  countries,  Spain  and  Italy  (table 
2).    During  the  past  three  years  these  two  countries  have  contributed, 


Bul.  453  ] 


ALMONDS 


25 


on  the  average,  91.2  per  cent  of  our  total  imports,  and  Spain  alone 
contributed  57.1  per  cent  of  the  total.  France  was  the  third  most 
important  source  of  our  foreign  supplies.  Our  imports  from  France, 
however,  were  relatively  small,  amounting  to  only  6.2  per  cent  of  the 
total. 

TABLE  2 

United  States  Imports  of  Almonds  by  Countries  of  Origin, 
Average  1913-1915  and  1924-1926 


Country 

Average  1913 

-15 

Average 

1924-26 

tons 

12,775 

6,712 

1,472 

894 

per  cent 
58.5 
30  7 

6.7 

4.1 

tons 
17,473 
10,429 

1,893 
790 

per  cent 
57  1 

Italy 

34  1 

6  2 

2  6 

Total .  .. 

21,853 

100  0 

30,585 

100  0 

Data  compiled  from  table  10. 

For  many  years,  Spain,  Italy,  and  France  have  furnished  us  with 
practically  all  of  our  imported  almonds.  Between  1913  and  1915  the 
combined  imports  from  these  three  countries  amounted  to  95.9  per 
cent  of  the  total  as  compared  with  97.4  per  cent  during  the  past  three 
years.  The  proportion  supplied  by  each  country  varies  from  year  to 
year,  of  course,  because  of  changes  in  their  production.  But  over  a 
series  of  years,  except  for  the  period  during  and  immediately  after 
the  war  when  imports  from  France  were  very  small,  the  average 
proportion  supplied  by  each  of  the  countries  has  not  changed  greatly. 


FOREIGN    ALMOND    PRODUCTION 

The  total  production  of  almonds,  outside  of  the  United  States,  is 
largely  confined  to  the  countries  bordering  on  the  Mediterranean  Sea. 
Detailed  information  on  the  almond  situation  in  these  countries  is 
not  available  at  the  present  time.  The  information  presented  here, 
although  it  is  fragmentary,  gives  some  indication  of  the  situation. 

Italy. — Italy  is  the  largest  almond-producing  country  in  the  world. 
The  bulk  of  the  Italian  crop  is  produced  in  the  Bari  district  and  on 
the  Island  of  Sicily.  The  annual  production  of  almonds  in  Italy  from 
1916  to  1926  is  given  in  table  3,  column  1.  These  figures  indicate  that 
there  has  been  a  substantial  increase  in  production  during  the  past 
eleven  years.  The  1916-1918  average  production  amounted  to  100,100 
tons  as  compared  with  an  average  production  of  125,800  tons  during 
the  three-3rear  period  from  192-1  to  1926. 


26 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


TABLE  3 
Production  of  Almonds  in  Certain  Foreign  Countries,  1916-1926 


Italy 

Spain 

France 

Greece 

Tunis 

Palestine 

1916    . 

tons 
121,100 

74,600 
104,600 

60,900 
151,400 
103,200 
206,600 
119,000 
146,100 

68,500 
162,700 

tons 

tons 

tons 

tons 
2,000 
2,900 
2,400 
3,000 
2,600 
3,900 
1,800 
2,100 
1,400 
2,000 

tons 

1917... 

1918..  .. 

4,900 
1,500 
7,200 
2,400 
2,700 
3,400 
2,600 
2,800 

1919 

1920 

1921 

7,800 
4,500 
9,200 
8,200 
5,000 

480 

1922 

81,400 

510 

1923 

520 

1924    . 

570 

1925    . 

99,000 
107,000 

680 

1926     . 

Sources  of  data: 

Column  1.  Years  1916-1922:  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  Bur.  Agr.  Econ.  Italian  almond  industry.  Foreign 
Crops  and  Markets  8:  19;  392.  1924.  Years  1923-1925:  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  Bur.  Agr.  Econ.  Italian  almond 
industry.  F.  S.  Al-17.  1926.  Year  1926:  Livengood,  Charles  A.  Italian  almond  production.  The  Minute 
Book,  1:  (22):  31.   1927. 

Columns  2  and  3.  U.  S.  Bur.  Agr.  Econ.  Division  of  Statistical  and  Historical  Research,  letter  to 
B.  H.  Critchfield. 

Column  4.  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  Bur.  Agr.  Econ.   The  nut  industry  in  Greece,  F.  S.N-10.    1926. 

Column  5.  Years  1916-1920,  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  Bur.  Agr.  Econ.  Almond  production  in  Tunisia. 
Al-10.  1925.  Years  1921-1925,  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  Bur.  Agr.  Econ.  The  Tunisian  1927  almond  crop. 
Al-28.   1927. 

Column  6.  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  Bur.  Agr.  Econ.  Production  and  marketing  of  Palestine  almonds. 
Al-15.   1926. 


F.  S. 
F.  S. 


F.S. 


TABLE  4 

Export  of  Almonds*  from  Italy  by  Countries  of  Destination, 
Average  1913-1914  and  Annual  1923-1925 


Tons  exported 

Percentage  of  total  exports 

Country 

Average 
1913-1914 

1923 

1924 

1925 

Average 
1913-1914 

1923 

1924 

1925 

1,601 

4,906 

3,588 

883 

493 

582 

974 

1,460 

6,733 
2,539 

4,368 
10,339 

2,677 
6,654 

111 

33.9 
24.8 
6.1 
3.4 
4  0 
6.7 
10.0 

25.8 
9.7 

15.4 
36.4 

14  1 

35.2 

Austria-Hungary 

2,823 
2,703 
1,882 
2,616 
6,768 

1,741 
1,119 
2,054 
1,933 
6,822 

964 
834 

1,200 
753 

5,849 

10.8 
10  4 

7.2 
10.0 
26.1 

6.2 
3.9 
7.2 
6.8 
24.1 

5  1 

4  4 

6.3 

India  and  Ceylon 

4  0 
30.9 

Total    . . 

14,487 

26,064 

28,376 

18,931 

100  0 

100.0 

100.0 

100  0 

*  Includes  both  shelled  and  unshelled. 

Sources  of  data:  Average  1913-14:  Ministero  delle  finanze.  Movimento  commerciale  del  regno  dTtalia, 
1913,1914.    1923-1925:  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  Bur.  Agr.  Econ.    Italian  almond  industry,  F.  S.  Al-17.    1926. 


Bul.  453 


ALMONDS 


27 


Exports  of  almonds  from  Italy  have  also  increased  substantially, 
rising  from  14,487  tons  on  the  average  in  1913  and  1914  to  an  average 
of  24,500  tons  in  1926. 

The  main  markets  of  Italian  almonds  are  given  in  table  4.  Before 
the  war  Germany  was  the  largest  market,  followed  by  Austria- 
Hungary.  In  1913  and  1914  these  two  countries  took  58.7  per  cent 
of  the  total  Italian  almond  exports.  On  the  other  hand,  only  11  per 
cent  of  the  Italian  almond  exports  were  sent  to  the  United  States. 
During  the  war  the  markets  in  Germany  and  Austria-Hungary  were 
largely  closed  to  Italian  exporters.  As  a  result  greatly  increased 
quantities  were  shipped  to  the  United  States.  During  the  past  few 
years  conditions  have  tended  to  approach  the  pre-war  basis. 


TABLE  5 

Exports  of  Shelled  Almonds  from  Malaga  (Spain)  by  Countries  of 

Destination,  1921-1924 


Tons  exported 

Percentage  of  total  exports 

Country 

1921 

1922 

1923 

1924 

1921 

1922 

1923 

1924 

2,147 

1,118 

231 

1,616 
876 
272 

2,050 

1,035 

167 

1,659 

1,372 

529 

61  4 

32  0 

6.6 

58.5 

31.7 

9.8 

63  1 

31.8 

5.1 

46.6 

38.5 

Other  countries 

14.9 

Total 

3,496 

2,764 

3,252 

3,560 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

100  0 

Data  from  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  Bur.  Agr.  Econ.    Large  Spanish  almond  crop  confirmed.    F.  S.  Al-7. 
1925. 

Spain. — Spain  ranks  next  to  Italy  in  the  world  production  of 
almonds.  In  1925  and  1926,  the  production  of  almonds  in  Spain  was 
substantially  larger  than  in  1922  (table  3,  column  2).  It  is  probable, 
however,  that  a  considerable  part  of  the  increase  was  due  to  favorable 
climatic  conditions.  According  to  trade  estimates,  the  production  in 
1925  was  above  normal.  During  the  past  two  years  there  has  been 
some  increase  in  the  almond  acreage  in  Spain.  In  1925,  it  was 
officially  placed  at  370,833  acres,  and  in  1927  at  377,601  acres. 

Exports  of  shelled  almonds  from  Malaga,  the  main  exporting 
market  of  Spain,  for  the  years  from  1921  to  1924  are  given  in  table  5. 
During  this  period  the  proportion  of  the  total  exports  shipped  to  the 
United  States  has  declined,  while  the  proportion  shipped  to  Great 
Britain  and  other  countries  has  increased. 

France. — The  production  of  almonds  in  France  is  small  as  com- 
pared with  that  in  Italy  or  Spain.  During  the  five  years  from  1921 
to  1925  no  definite  upward  or  downward  trend  in  almond  production 
in  France  is  apparent  (table  3,  column  3). 


28  UNIVERSITY    OP    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

Greece. — The  production  of  almonds  in  Greece  from  1918  to  1925 
is  given  in  table  3,  column  4.  During  the  past  five  years  the  pro- 
duction has  been  considerably  lower  than  the  1918-1920  average  pro- 
duction of  4,500  tons,  The  recent  figures  do  not  indicate  any  tendency 
toward  increased  production.  Approximately  20  per  cent  of  the  crop, 
on  the  average,  is  exported.   The  bulk  of  the  exports  are  sold  in  Egypt. 

Tunis. — The  available  data  on  almond  production  in  Tunis  since 
1916  are  given  in  table  3,  column  5.  There  has  been  no  tendency  for 
production  to  increase  during  this  period.  Almond  production  is 
largely  in  the  hands  of  the  natives,  who  consume  most  of  the  crop 
themselves.  Only  one-fourth  of  the  crop,  on  the  average,  is  exported. 
From  85  to  90  per  cent  of  the  exports  go  to  France,  where  they  are 
re-graded. 

Palestine. — The  production  of  almonds  in  Palestine  has  increased 
steadily  since  the  war  (table  3,  column  6).  It  is  probable  that  these 
estimates  of  production  are  considerably  under  the  actual  figures,  since 
they  were  obtained  from  the  tithe  assessments  only,  and  these  assess- 
ments do  not  cover  untaxed  private  holdings,  considerable  areas  of 
which  are  planted  to  almonds.  It  is  chiefly  for  this  reason  that  the 
production  estimate  in  1924  was  much  lower  than  the  quantity 
exported,  which  amounted  to  862  tons.  Egypt  and  Syria  are  the  main 
markets  for  Palestine  almonds. 

Other  countries. — Almonds  are  also  produced  in  Persia,  French 
Morocco,  Algeria,  and  Portugal.  Data  for  a  series  of  years  on  the 
production  of  almonds  in  these  four  countries,  however,  are  not 
available. 

ACKNOWLEDGMENT 

The  authors  of  this  bulletin  wish  to  express  their  thanks  and 
indebtedness  to  the  following  organizations  which  have  generously 
contributed  from  their  data  and  their  time:  the  California  Coopera- 
tive Crop  Reporting  Service ;  the  Bureau  of  Agricultural  Economics. 
United  States  Department  of  Agriculture;  the  Bureau  of  Foreign  and 
Domestic  Commerce,  United  States  Department  of  Commerce;  the 
Agricultural  Legislative  Committee;  the  Division  of  Agricultural 
Economics,  University  of  California;  and  the  California  Almond 
Growers  Exchange.  Farm  advisors  in  the  important  almond-growing 
counties  have  also  furnished  much  valuable  information. 


Bul.  453 


ALMONDS 


29 


APPENDIX    OF    TABLES 


TABLE  6 

Bearing  Acreage,  Production,  and  Average  Yield  of  Almonds  per  Acre 

in  California,  1914-1927 


Year 

Bearing 
acreage 

Production 

Average 

yield  per 

acre 

1 

2 

3 

1914 

1915 

acres 
14,947 
18,602 
20,470 
28,383 
29,242 
30,100 
35,044 
42,564 
52,876 
58,472 
62,313 
69,371 
75,311 
87,074 

tons 
2,250 
3,500 
3,400 
4,000 
5,100 
7,250 
5,500 
6,000 
8,500 
11,000 
8,000 
7,500 
16,000 
12,000 

pounds 
301 
376 

1916 

332 

1917 

282 

1918 

349 

1919 

482 

1920 ' 

314 

1921. 

282 

1922 

322 

1923 

376 

1924... 

257 

1925 

216 

1926 

425 

1927 

276 

Sources  of  data: 

Columns  1  and  2.  Kaufman,  E.  E.,  California  crop  report  for  1926.  California  Dept.  Agr.  Spec.  Pub. 
74:  25-26,  22.  1927;  except  for  production  figures  for  1926  and  1927  which  are  from  Kaufman,  E.  E.,  Sum- 
mary of  California  annual  crop  report — 1927  (mimeo.)  p.  3.    Jan.  4,  1928. 

Column  3.  Figures  in  column  2  converted  to  pounds  and  divided  by  corresponding  figures  in  col- 
umn 1. 


30 


UNIVERSITY    OP    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


TABLE   7 

California  Almond  Acreage  by  Main  Counties;  Bearing  Acreage,  1921-1927, 
and  Non-Bearing  Acreage,  1927 


District  and  county 


Bearing  acreage 

1921 

1922 

1923 

1924 

1925 

1926 

1927 

5,487 

9,127 

12,358 

14,318 

19,768 

23,516 

32,316 

2,500 

2,500 

2,500 

2,500 

2,535 

2,700 

2,800 

75 

2,508 

2,458 

2,400 

4,003 

4,003 

4,003 

2,000 

2,987 

6,320 

8,489 

12,150 

15,668 

24,242 

912 

1,132 

1,080 

929 

1,080 

1,145 

1,271 

22,545 

27,276 

29,031 

30,107 

31,632 

32,979 

34,356 

6,600 

7,000 

7,400 

7,526 

7,676 

7,837 

7,937 

1,250 

3,200 

3,600 

4,000 

4,500 

5,326 

5,576 

2,042 

2,508 

2,606 

2,703 

2,797 

2,904 

2,860 

2,030 

2,326 

2,351 

2,376 

2,400 

2,100 

2,140 

1,736 

1,776 

1,776 

1,776 

1,794 

1,500 

1,526 

1,776 

1,850 

1,970 

2,090 

2,105 

2,147 

2,227 

676 

666 

662 

662 

666 

915 

940 

6,000 

7,500 

8,207 

8,501 

9,200 

9,730 

10,630 

435 

450 

459 

473 

494 

520 

520 

11,733 

13,011 

13,680 

14,348 

14,258 

15,167 

16,892 

2,580 

2,580 

2,950 

3,321 

3,321 

3,920 

4,985 

5,123 

5,446 

5,519 

5,592 

5,676 

5,875 

5,945 

3,117 

3,820 

3,995 

4,170 

3,970 

4,067 

4,503 

468 

718 

775 

832 

878 

878 

954 

445 

447 

441 

433 

413 

427 

506 

2,739 

3,202 

3,340 

3,477 

3,650 

3,603 

3,479 

762 

1,062 

1,062 

1,062 

1,129 

1,069 

1,053 

1,060 

1,155 

1,250 

1,345 

1,400 

1,362 

1,330 

694 

707 

719 

731 

746 

767 

767 

223 

278 

309 

339 

395 

405 

329 

120 

320 

126 

126 

126 

92 

62 

42,564 

52,876 

58,472 

62,313 

69,371 

75,311 

87,074 

Non- 
bearing 
acreage, 

1927* 


Coast  district 

Contra  Costa 

Monterey 

San  Luis  Obispo 

Others 

Sacramento  Valley ... 

Butte 

Colusa 

Glenn 

Sacramento 

Solano 

Sutter 

Tehama 

Yolo 

Others 

San  Joaquin  Valley. 

Merced 

San  Joaquin 

Stanislaus 

Tulare 

Others 

Southern  California 

Los  Angeles 

Riverside 

Ventura 

Others 

Other  districts 

State 


10,096 
143 
100 

9,701 
152 

3,062 
53 
544 
182 
150 
142 
33 
116 

1,565 
277 

1,235 
156 
193 
668 


224 

73 

2 

63 

86 

14,617 


*  1926  plantings  of  1,155  acres  not  included. 

Source  of  data:   Revised  figures  compiled  by  N. 
Service. 


Nielsen,  California  Cooperative  Crop  Reporting 


Bul.  453 


ALMONDS 


31 


TABLE  8 

Prices  Paid  to  Growers  for  Almonds,  California,  1910- 
(Cents  per  pound — unshelled) 


1927 


IXL 

Ne  Plus 
Ultra 

Drake 

Average 

Year 

Nonpareil 

Price 

Relative 
price 

Relative 

purchasing 

power 

All- 
commodity 
index 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

1910 

14.00 

13  00 

12  00 

10  00 

12.29 

88.6 

86.0 

103 

1911 

16.50 

15.50 

14.50 

12.00 

14.64 

105.6 

111  2 

95 

1912 

13  25 

12  25 

11  25 

9.50 

11  61 

83.7 

83  0 

101 

1913 

17  25 

16.25 

15.25 

13  25 

15.54 

112  1 

109  9 

102 

1914 

18 

00 

15  00 

14.50 

12.50 

15.24 

109.9 

109.9 

100 

1915 

13 

00 

12.00 

11.00 

9.25 

11.36 

81.9 

79.5 

103 

1916 

17 

25 

14  75 

13  75 

13.00 

14.95 

107.8 

83.6 

129 

1917 

17 

50 

16.00 

15.00 

12.50 

15  31 

110  4 

61.3 

180 

1918 

24 

00 

22  00 

21.00 

17  00 

21.04 

151.8 

76.7 

198 

1919 

26 

00 

24  00 

21.00 

14  00 

21.20 

152  9 

72.8 

210 

1920 

18 

50 

18.50 

16.50 

9.00 

15  31 

110  4 

48  0 

230 

1921 

18 

00 

17  00 

16  00 

9  00 

14  79 

106.7 

71   1 

150 

1922 

20  00 

18.00 

16.00 

11  00 

16  27 

117  4 

77.2 

152 

1923 

15  00 

13.00 

13.00 

8  00 

12  21 

88.1 

56  5 

156 

1924 

18.25 

16.75 

16  50 

10  75 

15  44 

111  4 

73  3 

152 

1925 

26  25 

23.50 

21  63 

15.88 

21.88 

157  8 

97.4 

162 

1926* 

20  20 

16  40 

16  60 

12.00 

16.47 

118.8 

77.1 

154 

1927f 

21.00 

18  00 

17  50 

13.00 

17.49 

126.2 

85  3 

149 

*An  additional  5  per  cent  will  in  time  be  paid  on  the  1926  crop. 

t  Estimates  by  the  writers,  based  upon  prices  received  by  numerous  growers. 

Source  of  data: 

Columns  1-4.   Anonymous.   Prices  growers  received  from  the  ^California  Almond  Growers)  Exchange 
since  1910.   The  Minute  Book  1:  (23) :  10.   1928. 

Column  5.   Average  price  weighted  by  the  relative  importance  of  the  four  varieties  from  1923  to  1926 
inclusive  (for  weights  see  fig.  7,  p.  00). 

Column  6.  Average  price  1910-14  equals  100. 

Column  7.   Figures  in  column  6  deflated  by  the  corresponding  index  number  in  column  8. 

Column  8.   U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  Bur.  Agr.  Econ.    The  Agricultural  Situation,  12:  2;  7.    1928. 


32 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


TABLE   9 

Imports,  Production,  and  Consumption  of  Almonds,  United  States,  1913-1926 
(Equivalent  of  unshelled) 


Year 

beginning 

July  1 

Total 
imports 

Foreign 
exports 

Net 
imports 

California 
production 

Total  supply 
available  for 
consumption 

Per-capita 
consump- 
tion 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

tons 

tons 

tons 

tons 

tons 

pounds 

1913 

22,828 

172 

22,656 

1,100 

23,756 

0.48 

1914 

20,764 

273 

20,491 

2,250 

22,741 

0.46 

1915 

21,967 

530 

21,437 

3,500 

24,937 

0.49 

1916 

30,127 

351 

29,776 

3,400 

33,176 

0.65 

1917 

31,483 

632 

30,851 

4,000 

34,851 

0.67 

1918 

38,761 

309 

38,452 

5,100 

43,552 

0  83 

1919 

43,167 

602 

42,565 

7,250 

49,815 

0.94 

1920 

24,122 

169 

23,953 

5,500 

29,453 

0.55 

1921 

42,292 

58 

42,234 

6,000 

48,234 

0  88 

1922 

36,746 

76 

36,670 

8,500 

45,170 

0.82 

1923 

36,445 

150 

36,295 

11,000 

47,295 

0.84 

1924 

33,944 

190 

33,754 

8,000 

41,754 

0  73 

1925 

29,716 

61 

29,655 

7,500 

37,155 

0.64 

1926 

23,869 

61 

23,808 

16,000 

39,808 

0  68 

Sources  of  data: 

Columns  1  and  2.   U.  S.  Dept.  of  Commerce,  Bur.  Foreign  and  Domestic  Commerce.   U.  S.  monthly 
summary  of  foreign  and  domestic  commerce.   June  issues. 

Column  3.   Figures  in  column  2  subtracted  from  corresponding  figures  in  column  1. 

Column  4.   From  table  6,  column  2. 

Column  5.   Figures  in  column  3  added  to  corresponding  figures  in  column  4. 

Column  6.   Figures  in  column  5  converted  to  pounds  and  divided  by  the  United  States  population 
or  the  corresponding  years. 


Bul.  453 


ALMONDS 


33 


co 

~ 

d 

0 

go 

r 

3    g 

re     sr 


3    1- 

re     2 


3  3 

3  £ 

re  rt- 

"  s 

w  5' 

c1  w 


?8 


3      C 


a?  t3 

P       O 

'J 


H 

> 

0 

*l 

H 

Cfi 

ag 

£ 

tal  im 
Shelle 
Unshe 
Total 

h  d 

1. 

0 

H  d 

'A 

Uns 
Tot 

her 

S   g    re^" 

iin: 

She 
(lis 

Tn1 

2.  n 

re 

3* 

2_ 

J3" 

s  g 

2. 

5^ » 

L  re 

5* 

re 
1 

EL  3- 
re 

r 

helle 
al  in 
Euro 

~ 

E.1T3 

re    re 

SL  3-  = 
re    re 

0 

0 

3 
3 

»'  §r 

*s 

5'  if 

- 

re 

c 

B=-f 

L 

X 

»'  5s 

X 

5'  If 

CL 

3    0- 

3. 

3     0- 

n 

3     O- 

S   c   0- 

3   a. 

3  p- 

3 

co 

3 

p 

3 

re    i-t 

3 

g 

CO 

CO 

B 

» 

< 
0 

p* 

r 

3. 

=- 

3     cr 

r 

=r 

£L 

p__ 

s 

L 

"  2- 

2. 

re 

~ 

re 

p* 

B 

re 

re 

0 

CL 

~ 

a 

0- 

z- 

D- 

2_ 

* 

3^ 

3' 

to 
JS3    tO    05 

h- 

ts3 

05     tO     4k. 

CO 

00    X    O) 

00 

ts3 

35 

S3 

CO    to 

Oi 

30             CO 

4k.     4k.    05 

CO 

M    O    til 

.0 

JZ 

O       4- 

Is3     *- 

§ 

CO    CO     *- 

C5    vl    O) 

£1    to 

CO 

30      k- 

e 

00    00 

30    CO    CO 

Ol    05    CO 

to 

O    tO    OS 

0          to 

.O     ►—    tO 

y+ 

k> 

S      *      M 

H-      CO 

to 

O    CO    00 
4k.    CO     00 

45     05    Vl 

^ 

re 

63 
CO 

0  4k. 

CJ1 

-   4k. 

- 

4-     Ol 

35 

Ol    0    00 

i-   1-   i 

0  ~j 

45     -4 

C35    -vj 

» 

—    to    CO 

00    CO    CO 

cr 

re 

to 

■s. 

H-    H*    Ol 

i- 

»         to 

—     k-     CO 

CO 

5' 

«3     4k.    00 

.O 

CO    CO 

^3 

S3             -^J 

-O      O     05 

Ol 

3 

Ol    O)    w 

-0 

tk. 

4-     4- 

^3 

ji    4k.    CO 

O    M     O 

~j    Oi    4k. 

~J    CO 

30 

0   k-» 

a 

tO    (35 

to 

30    >—    CO 

—    4k.    CO 

3 
era 

CO 

0  to  0 

J*             4k. 

-r  « 

CO 

3 

1—    Oi    to 

M 

Jl 

^J    to 

*k.     4k.   "co 

O    ^1    4k. 

05 

to   0   0 

30 

4k.     05 

s 

00    ^1    ^J 

*k.     Ol    CO 

35     k-    k- 

S     O!     N 

CO    O0 

31 

*a  to 

J' 

CO     O 

JO 

■q    »    M 

—    O    ^1 

CO 

k-   to   c© 

*k.              4k. 

4k.     k->     4k. 

CO 

*.      H-      ^) 

4k. 

Jl 

^J 

S3            Vj    m    00 

0    00    CO 

-vl 

00     4k.    00 

tO     (-> 

M 

.0 

-1 

^4     h?>. 

*k.             CO    00    -^1 

Ol    CO     Ol 

OS      O      k— 

.O     tO 

4>     05 

35 

CO    45. 

J3 

Jl     MM 

30    OS     4k. 

CO             k- 

Oi    Co    0 

^1             Ol 

35    tO     4k. 

CO 

co   0   ~J 

^3 

n 

0 

Ol 

JO              ^J 

CO    CO     4k. 

00 

CO     -»1     ~J 

5 

ss   to 

35 

C35    CO    ^1             O    "*JJ     (*k- 

30    CO    O0 

k-   01   to 

<I  1— 

to 

Jl  1— 

rj 

1— '    CO    C35            CO    ^j    to 

Ol    CO    4k. 

4».            h- 

M 

(n   U    ^ 

to           CO 

o   to   CO 

CO 

-J  ~J  © 

■^1 

^1 

CO     Ol 

-"             CO    4k.    CO 

30    05    CO 

CO 

Cn    »    O 

Jl  k- 

Ft 

»  4". 

3> 

CO    00    CO             CO    O    -~J 

30    CO     CO 

4-     tO     -U 

J0    to 

<I     OS 

-1 

OO      H- 

O 

*k.    CO    Ol 

to     4k-    05 

co 

O    CO    0 

CO             4k. 

Cn    to    4k. 

CO 

01   co  © 

.0 

*k. 

CO      !*»• 

-•             CO    4k.    CO 

4k-    ts3     4k- 

0 

"1     Ol     v| 

—   to 

0 

-J  00 

c 

O     CO 

Ji             CO     05    O 

O    00    O 

•"J    to    en 

to    >*•• 

35 

j0     CO 

3 

05     tO     O0                O     05     00 

3>    M    CO 

CO 

— 

to 

CO    to    0 

O          co 

-.    l-»    OS 

CO 

to 

Ol    to     4>- 

30 

S3 

n  to  m 

—    k—    CO 

^3     ^J     Ol 

0    O    CO 

-0 

-O    to 

-1 

CO    N    00 

-k    4k.    to 

O    4k.    k- 

ffl    m    Ui 

^1   to 

-.'. 

Ji     Ol 

s 

4k.    CO    ^1             M    M    Ol 

^3    CO     O0 

O 
V 

re 

co          >■* 

p 

00   to    — 

~ 

OO                OS 

-4    tO    Ol 

CO 

4»-   00   00 

Ol 

Jl 

0    to    to           OS    to    ►— 

Ol    to    O 

to 
to 

Cn    (n    O) 

■-1    00 

-■ 

0 

e 

4»-    --J    Oi             CO     CO    Ol 

4>.    Ol    CO 

ffl    Ol    ^J 

CO     *» 

M 

-J    CO 

X 

Ol    ^1 

35             OO    CO    Ol 

J3     O0     Ol 

<< 

re 
P 

4k.         k- 

©   k-   to 

CO             05 

30    m-    Oi 

CO 

k—    CO    «o 

4k. 

JO 

co   1—   to         ^1          01 

35     k-k     OO 

CO 

Ol    m    * 

30   k- 

J' 

w 

tO    CO    CT5             —J    Oi    -^1 

f.      M      ||k 

e  00  «j 

—    CO 

99 

=>    -*1 

~    to    CO           -J    to    Oi 

O    4k.     to 

CO             i~> 

— 

S3 

=  i-  i35 

CO 

tO      Ol       H 

05     k-     4k.                Ol                k— 

«k.    CO    CO 

4k. 

co   to   0 

in    to 

4- 

35     -1 

tO     Ol     CO                -J     k—     OO 

—    Oi    Oi 

-j   oi   4* 

to  0 

35     CO 

0 

■^    m    M             CO    OO    Oi             CD    -4    *. 

to 

OS-  to    00 

to 

00 

CO 

to   0   0 

Oi 

35 

tO    M     Oi             4»-             00             4k.C5tO 

to 

Oi 

CO     -^1     — 1 

Ol    k— 

-1 

O    Ol 

e 

OOiOl             CO00O             CO    Ol    Ot 

to   05   to 

Ol    00 

0 

0  «-l 

Ik 

05     O 

—   to   co 

—    CO     4k. 

co          >— 

0       0 

O            CO            ^i            Ol 

Ol   4k.    0 

35 

S3 

S3 

OO            Oi            to            CO            Oi    >—    00 

OS 

to   0   4- 

M   "*1 

= 

—    to   < 

35 

4k.O0O0             M    tC    H             05tOn- 

■*) 

M 

=> 

35 

*3 

050005              4».O00             00054k. 

34 


UNIVERSITY    OP    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


00    CD    O            r- 

CD    CO             CD    CO     i- 

CN 

in          co    •- 

o 

CM     if>    rt 

CM    CO     CO             I~-    OO    i- 

Tfl     Cs 

kf)    CD     CM 

1 

co  co   t- 

O    if    if             0O    00    lO             CO    00    i- 

O     CM    U< 

co"  »-<"  — 

oo"          -*" 

h 

« 

CO 

CO              OO             CO 

CM 

« 

CO     CN 

OO    CM    CC 

IS    tO    r 

<r 

CO     lO             t^ 

co    t^ 

bO 

cc 

oo   r^ 

CO    it 

CO     r-H     — 

O    •*            "" 

^H      00 

p 

CN 

oc 

CN 

t^ 

^H       O 

CO 

<j 

'-r 

>> 

-tf 

co   ir. 

CS 

CM    OC 

O           O           if 

•o         oc 

^H      If) 

i-l    CO 

« 

-tl    C" 

00             it 

c 

t^ 

1-H       •* 

"3 

« 

r~         cs 

CM             C- 

co 

•-S 

CN 

-< 

03 

CC 

O    oc 

§ 

CM    CN 

■«*!     CO     1- 

c 

o         oo 

« 

CO     CC 

i-l    OC 

CO     CM    CO 

•f!                  CO 

CN 

t^ 

o 

oc 

CNI     CO                CS 

OO                CN 

r^ 

1-5 

>> 

it 

i*    CC 

CC 

Tf     CN 

O    CO    CC 

« 

OO    N             00    OO     CM 

rt   co 

if 

— i     rt 

c<" 

c- 

co 

5 

If 

CM 

CO 

S 

_ 

co 

i-H   CJ 

^H     it 

CO    CM     O             -*t 

CM             — 

^ 

'E 

■** 

eo 

r^ 

co          i- 

c<- 

O            o- 

CO 

a 

oc 

if 

t^ 

« 

oo         if 

co          oo 

< 

CM 

cm" 

■*J 

©     CN 

Cs 

1—1    l> 

CO    t-i    OO             if 

b-    CM             i- 

^H      Tt< 

03 

a- 

CM    c 

I-i 

O    CO    OO             CC 

OS 

a 

c 

t~ 

o 

c- 

oo 

s 

co 

CN 

1- 

cv 

CM 

CC 

i*<     CN 

r^ 

io    CC 

O      ■**!      ^t 

oc 

rH  «o         a 

CD    CO 

X! 

•^ 

t^ 

« 

iO            ir 

a 

co          »r 

OO 

03 

C 

CS 

oc 

CM             I> 

oc 

CD             t^ 

CM 

fe 

CO 

er 

CSI 

CSI 

CN 

i-l    t> 

i> 

t-    OO            CO    ^    CO            oc 

CO    o           — 

CD    CO 

fl 

G 

CM     Cs 

CN 

^h   o- 

« 

UO    t^ 

If 

»f> 

c« 

-* 

If 

if 

OO 

t^             CM 

*"S 

it 

cs 

CD 

CM 

CC 

CO    it 

CN 

CNI     OC 

cv 

CD    »f 

i* 

O    N             CC 

*$<    CM 

o 

a 

co  oc 

CN 

rt  t-. 

lf 

i-l    t~i 

if)    if 

I> 

co 

0) 

co 

CN 

t> 

Cs 

t^ 

d 

CO     i- 

CC 

o 

Q 

t 

if 

CC 

CM 

CO     CC 

OC 

if)    o- 

t^ 

i*l     IT 

c 

CM    CS 

l> 

CM    CO 

> 

O 

if)     CN 

a- 

t~     CC 

CO     •- 

CC 

~H      03                OC 

CD     CM 

o 

cc 

i-l    O 

ir- 

CN!   C 

-it 

C^ 

CM    CD             if 

00 

£ 

if 

es 

oc 

ci- 

"*<" 

CN 

if)     i- 

CC 

co   it 

CS 

t~-   c<- 

1^ 

co   r~          i- 

CM    »f> 

CO 

It 

o  -^ 

ri 

1--     CO              1- 

CO     i- 

CT 

i-H      OO 

o 

00    ? 

It 

OS     CN 

c; 

i-H     C<" 

c 

O    i- 

a 

^H      O 

O 

If 

-H     it 

rt  Tt 

co 

^ 

I> 

CO     l~i 

CS 

OS     in 

t^   ^*<   >r 

it 

CO    OO             CC 

■<*<     CM 

D. 

l>- 

t-    G 

w 

CD    CN 

tr 

CO     CC 

oc 

i-l     CO                1- 

cm   r~ 

03 

CC 

if 

cs 

r+    co 

CM             CN 

CD 

CO 

l^ 

g 

CM 

CO 

* 

# 

[* 

■e 

— 

~ 

~ 

"S 

a 

g 

g 

J 

V 

o 

"3 

"a 

1 

1 

cu 

-= 

pC 

* 

* 

h=1 

CM 

•/ 

or 

■/ 

a 

O! 

E 

E 

R 

C 

3 

CO 

13    S 

TS    S 

T3     = 

TS     5 

T3     3 

CM 

2  -c 

~    c 

t 

s    c 

t 

=     C 

T3 

S     E 

T3 

S  .9 

"35  !2 

a 
co  CC 

"35  "*" 

9 

si 

^   'X. 

"35  lH 

CD    ^ 

CJ    '"" 

■S3 

-S  5 

a   o 

c    c 

fl    c 

7  -e 

io  CO 

fi    c 

^  -£ 

3    O 

&  H 

P  H 

&  h 

S=>  h 

co   CO 

&  H 

<J 

CM 

CS| 

CM 

CM 

CO 

oo 

CO 

— " 

^^ 

1-1 

(0 

= 

o 

fl 

U 

o 
a 

o 

3 

n 

03 

~ 

v. 

-r 

a 
o 

a 

S 

ij 

3 

-C 

>. 

- 

o 

P1 

— 

3 

a 

3 

■J 
0 

QD 

a 

>> 

03 

^5 

fl 

D 

0 

CO 

S  a 

3  a 

s  a 

£  -J 

5  s 

«  a 

5  Q 


> 

ti 

o 

o 

B 
o 
O 

09 

o 

03 

ft 

03 

(0 

3 

Q 

Q. 

CO 

-3 
03 

t> 

A 

fl 

r 

C3 

a 

-a 

5        H 


STATION  PUBLICATIONS  AVAILABLE  FOR  FREE   DISTRIBUTION 


BULLETINS 


No. 

253.  Irrigation  and  Soil  Conditions  in  the 
Sierra    Nevada   Foothills,    California. 

262.  Citrus   Diseases  of   Florida   and   Cuba 

Compared  with   those  of   California. 

263.  Size  Grades  for  Ripe  Olives. 

268.  Growing  and  Grafting  Olive  Seedlings. 

273.  Preliminary  Report  on  Kearney  Vine- 
yard Experimental  Drain,  Fresno 
County,    Calif. 

277.  Sudan  Grass. 

278.  Grain  Sorghums. 

279.  Irrigation   of   Rice  in   California. 
283.  The  Olive  Insects  of  California. 
304.  A  Study  of  the  Effects  of  Freezes  on 

Citrus  in  California. 

310.   Plum  Pollination. 

313.  Pruning  Young  Deciduous  Fruit 
Trees. 

324.  Storage  of  Perishable  Fruits  at  Freez- 
ing Temperatures. 

328.   Prune   Growing  in   California. 

331.   Phylloxera-resistant  Stocks. 

335.  Cocoanut  Meal  as  a  Feed  for  Dairy 
Cows   and   Other  Livestock. 

340.  Control  of  the  Pocket  Gopher  in 
California. 

343.  Cheese   Pests  and  Their  Control. 

344.  Cold    Storage   as   an   Aid   to   the   Mar- 

keting of  Plums,  a  Progress  Report. 

347.  The  Control  of  Red  Spiders  in  Decid- 

uous Orchards. 

348.  Pruning  Young  Olive  Trees. 

349.  A    Study    of    Sidedraft    and    Tractor 

Hitches. 

350.  Agriculture      in      Cut-Over      Redwood 

Lands. 

353.  Bovine    Infectious    Abortion,    and    As- 

sociated Diseases  of  Cattle  and  New- 
born Calves. 

354.  Results  of  Rice  Experiments  in   1922. 

357.  A    Self-Mixing    Dusting    Machine    for 

Applying  Dry  Insecticides  and  Fun- 
gicides. 

358.  Black    Measles,     Water    Berries,     and 

Related  Vine  Troubles. 

361.  Preliminary  Yield  Tables  for  Second- 

Growth   Redwood. 

362.  Dust  and  the  Tractor  Engine. 

363.  The  Pruning  of  Citrus  Trees  in  Cali- 

fornia. 

364.  Fungicidal    Dusts    for    the    Control    of 

Bunt. 

366.  Turkish     Tobacco     Culture,     Curing, 

and  Marketing. 

367.  Methods  of  Harvesting  and  Irrigation 

in  Relation  to  Moldy  Walnuts. 

368.  Bacterial      Decomposition      of      Olives 

During   Pickling. 

369.  Comparison     of     Woods     for     Butter 

Boxes. 

370.  Factors    Influencing   the    Development 

of  Internal  Browning  of  the  Yellow 
Newton   Apple. 

371.  The   Relative    Cost   of   Yarding    Small 

and  Large  Timber. 

373.  Pear   Pollination. 

374.  A    Survey    of    Orchard    Practices    in 

the     Citrus     Industry     of     Southern 
California. 

375.  Results   of   Rice   Experiments   at   Cor- 

tena,   1923,  and  Progress  in  Experi- 
ments in  Water  Grass  Control  at  the 
Biggs   Rice  Field    Station,    1922-23. 
377.  The  Cold  Storage  of  Pears. 

379.  Walnut   Culture  in   California. 

380.  Growth    of    Eucalyptus    in    California 

Plantations. 
382.   Pumping    for    Draininge    in    the    San 

Joaquin   Valley,    California. 
385.   Pollination  of  the  Sweet  Cherry. 


No. 

386. 

387. 
388. 

389. 
390. 

391. 

392. 
393. 
394. 


395. 

396. 

397. 

398. 
400. 
402. 
404. 
405. 
406. 
407. 


408. 
409. 


410. 

411. 
412. 


415. 
416. 

417. 

418. 

419. 

420. 

421. 

422. 

423. 

424. 

425. 
426. 

427. 

428. 

429. 
430. 
431. 

432. 

433. 


Pruning  Bearing  Deciduous  Fruit 
Trees. 

Fig   Smut. 

The  Principles  and  Practice  of  Sun- 
Drying  Fruit. 

Berseem  or  Egyptian  Clover. 

Harvesting  and  Packing  Grapes  in 
California. 

Machines  for  Coating  Seed  Wheat 
with   Copper   Carbonate   Dust. 

Fruit  Juice  Concentrates. 

Crop  Sequences  at  Davis. 

I.  Cereal  Hay  Production  in  Cali- 
fornia. II.  Feeding  Trials  with 
Cereal  Hays. 

Bark  Diseases  of  Citrus  Trees  in  Cali- 
fornia. 

The  Mat  Bean,  Phaseolus  Aconitifo- 
lius. 

Manufacture  of  Roquefort  Type  Cheese 
from  Goat's  Milk. 

Orchard   Heating  in   California. 

The  Utilization  of  Surplus  Plums. 

The  Codling  Moth  in  Walnuts. 

The  Dehydration  of  Prunes. 

Citrus   Culture   in    Central    California. 

Stationary  Spray  Plants  in  California. 

Yield,  Stand,  and  Volume  Tables  for 
White  Fir  in  the  California  Pine 
Region. 

Alternaria  Rot  of  Lemons. 

The  Digestibility  of  Certain  Fruit  By- 
products as  Determined  for  Rumi- 
nants. Part  I.  Dried  Orange  Pulp 
and  Raisin  Pulp. 

Factors  Influencing  the  Quality  of 
Fresh  Asparagus  after  It  is  Har- 
vested. 

Paradichlorobenzene  as  a  Soil  Fumi- 
gant. 

A  Study  of  the  Relative  Value  of  Cer- 
tain Root  Crops  and  Salmon  Oil  as 
Sources   of   Vitamin   A  for   Poultry. 

Planting  and  Thinning  Distances  for 
Deciduous  Fruit  Trees. 

The  Tractor  on  California  Farms. 

Culture  of  the  Oriental  Persimmon  in 
California. 

Poultry  Feeding:  Principles  and  Prac- 
tice. 

A  Study  of  Various  Rations  for  Fin- 
ishing Range  Calves    as  Baby  Beeves. 

Economic  Aspects  of  the  Cantaloupe 
Industry. 

Rice  and  Rice  By-Products  as  Feeds 
for  Fattening  Swine. 

Beef   Cattle   Feeding  Trials,    1921-24. 

Cost  of  Producing  Almonds  in  Cali- 
fornia :  a  Progress  Report. 

Apricots  (Series  on  California  Crops 
and  Prices). 

The  Relation  of  Rate  of  Maturity  to 
Egg  Production. 

Apple  Growing  in  California. 

Apple  Pollination  Studies  in  Cali- 
fornia. 

The  Value  of  Orange  Pulp  for  Milk 
Production. 

The  Relation  of  Maturity  of  Cali- 
fornia Plums  to  Shipping  and 
Dessert  Quality. 

Economic  Status  of  the  Grape  Industry. 

Range  Grasses  of  California. 

Raisin  By-Products  and  Bean  Screen- 
ings as  Feeds  for  Fattening  Lambs. 

Some  Economic  Problems  Involved  in 
the  Pooling  of  Fruit. 

Power  Requirements  of  Electrically 
Driven    Manufacturing    Equipment. 


No. 

434. 


BULLETINS—  (Continued) 
No. 


Investigations  on  the  Use  of  Fruits  in 
Ice  Cream  and  Ices. 

435.  The      Problem      of      Securing      Closer 

Relationship  Between  Agricultural 
Development  and  Irrigation  Con- 
struction. 

436.  I.   The   Kadota   Fig.      II.   Kadota   Fig 

Products. 

437.  Economic    Aspects    of    the    Dairy    In- 

dustry. 

438.  Grafting  Affinities  with  Special  Refer- 

ence to   Plums. 

439.  The  Digestibility  of  Certain  Fruit  By- 

products as  Determined  for  Rumi- 
nants. Part  II.  Dried  Pineapple 
Pulp,  Dried  Lemon  Pulp,  and  Dried 
Olive  Pulp. 


441. 
442. 
443. 

444. 


The  Feeding  Value  of  Raisins  and 
Dairy  By-Products  for  Growing  and 
Fattening  Swine. 

The  Electric  Brooder. 

Laboratory  Tests  of  Orchard  Heaters. 

Standardization  and  Improvement  of 
California   Butter. 

Series  on  California  Crops  and  Prices: 
Beans. 

Economic  Aspects  of  the  Apple  In- 
dustry. 


No. 

87.  Alfalfa. 
115.   Grafting   Vinifera   Vineyards. 
117.  The    selection    and    Cost    of    a    Small 

Pumping  Plant. 
127.  House  -Fumigation. 
129.  The  control  of  Citrus  Insects. 
136.  Melilotus    Indica    as    a    Green-Manure 

Crop  for  California. 
144.   Oidium    or    Powdery    Mildew    of    the 

Vine. 
157.   Control  of  Pear   Scab. 
164.   Small   Fruit   Culture   in    California. 
166.  The  County  Farm  Bureau. 
173.  The    Construction    of    the    Wood-Hoop 

Silo. 

178.  The  Packing  of.  Apples  in  California. 

179.  Factors    of    Importance    in    Producing 

Milk  of  Low  Bacterial  Count. 

202.  County    Organization    for    Rural    Fire 

Control. 

203.  Peat   as   a  Manure   Substitute. 
209.  The  Function  of  the  Farm  Bureau. 
212.   Salvaging   Rain-Damaged   Prunes. 
215.  Feeding  Dairy  Cows  in   California. 
217.  Methods  for  Marketing  Vegetables  in 

California. 

230.  Testing  Milk,    Cream,    and   Skim  Milk 
for  Butterfat. 

231.  The  Home  Vineyard. 

232.  Harvesting    and    Handling    California 

Cherries   for   East.ern    Shipment. 
234.  Winter     Injury  '  to     Young     Walnut 
Trees  During  1921-1922. 

238.  The  Apricot  in   California.    , 

239.  Harvesting     and     Handling     Apricots 

and  Plums  for  Eastern  Shipment. 

240.  Harvesting    and  'Handling    California 

Pears  for  Eastern  Shipment. 

241.  Harvesting    and    Handling    California 

Peaches  for  Eastern   Shipment. 

243.  Marmalade     Juice     and     Jelly     Juice 

from  Citrus  Fruits. 

244.  Central  Wire  Bracing  for  Fruit  Trees. 

245.  Vine  ^Pruning  Systems. 

248.  Some  Common   Errors  in  Vine  Prun- 

ing and  Their  Remedies. 

249.  Replacing  Missing  Vines. 

250.  Measurement   of   Irrigation  Water   on 

.the  .Farm. 

252.  Support  for   Vines.  . 

253.  Vineyard   Plans. 

254.  The    Use    of    Artificial    Light    to    In- 

crease Winter.  Egg  Production. 

255.  LeguminoQs    Plants    as    Organic    Fer- 

tilizers in    California   Agriculture. 


CIRCULARS 
No. 


257. 

258. 
259. 
261. 
264. 

265. 
266. 

267. 

269. 

270. 
273. 
276. 

277. 

278. 
279. 
281. 


282. 

283. 

284. 
286. 
287. 
283. 
289. 
290. 
292. 
293. 
294.- 
296. 

298. 

300. 
301. 
302. 
304. 
305. 
306. 

307. 
308. 
309. 
310. 

311. 


The   Small-Seeded  Horse  Bean    (Vicia 

faba   var.   minor). 
Thinning   Deciduous  Fruits. 
Pear  By-Products. 
Sewing  Grain  Sacks. 
Preliminary  Essentials  to  Bovine  Tu 

berculosis  Control  in   California. 
Plant   Disease  and  Pest  Control. 
Analyzing     the     Citrus     Orchard     b> 

Means  of  Simple  Tree  Records. 
The  Tendency  of  Tractors  to   Rise  in 

Front;  Causes  and  Remedies. 
An   Orchard  Brush  Burner. 
A  Farm  Septic  Tank. 
Saving  the  Gophered  Citrus  Tree. 
Home   Canning. 
Head,    Cane   and    Cordon    Pruning   of 

Vines. 
Olive       Pickling      in      Mediterranean 

Countries. 
The     Preparation     and     Refining     of 

Olive  Oil  in  Southern  Europe. 
The    Results    of    a    Survey    to    Deter- 
mine the  Cost  of  Producing  Beef  in 

California. 
Prevention  of  Insect  Attack  on  Stored 

Grain. 
Fertilizing  Citrus  Trees  in  California. 
The  Almond  in   California.     . 
Milk  Houses  for  California  Dairies.; 
Potato   Production  in   California. 
Phylloxera  Resistant  Vineyaanis. 
Oak  Fungus  in   Orchard'  Trees. 
The  Tangier  Pea. 
Alkali  Soils.      ~.   ••  -     ■      ' 
The    Basis   of   Grape    Standardization. 
•Propagation   Of  Deciduous  Fruits. 
Control     of     the     California     Ground 

Squirrel. 
Possibilities  and  Limitations  of  Coop- 
erative Marketing. 
Coccidiosis  of  Chickens. 
Buckeye  Poison jng  of  the  Honey  Bee. 
The   Sugar  Beet  in  California.. 
Drainage  on  the  Farm./ 
Liming  the   Soil. 
A    General    Purpose    Soil    Auger    and 

Its  Use  on  the  Farm.    , 
American  Foulbrood   and   Its  Control. 
Cantaloupe    Production   in    California. 
Fruit  Tree  and   Orchard  Judging. 
The    Operation    of   the    Bacteriological 

Laboratory  for  Dairy  Plants. 
The  Improvement  of  Quality,  in  Figs. 


The  publications  listed  above  may  be  had  by  addressing 

College  of  Agriculture, 

University  of  California, 

Berkeley,  California. 


14m-5,'28 


